Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Track the Films You Watch (2009)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Track the Films You Watch (2009) - Page 50

post #1471 of 1550
11/22/09 at 10:24am
11/22/09: ANTICHRIST (Lars von Trier, 2009)
 
Initially, I was to have watched this a couple of months ago following the high recommendation of a friend of mine and, seeing it named as “the all-time greatest horror movie” by a recent online poll by Sky, almost made me include it in this year’s Halloween Challenge. However, it was finally the fact that two fellow HTFers watched this simultaneously that made me get to it and, consequently, break cyber silence. My measly rating is a tell-tale sign of how I came to feel about and, if I were being economic, I would dismiss it in just five words: “ANTICHRIST is a fucking bore”. However, I know I will have to do better than that – firstly, to be true to myself and also because my friends (and regular readers) have come to expect no less. To begin with, I have to dispel the hypothetical myth that this film can only be relevant to (or fully understood by) people that are married or in a steady relationship and have children of their own; my mother was no long-lost prostitute, my brother has not been driven mad by religious fervor and I have no serious physical deformities but that did not stop (respectively) SANSHO THE BAILIFF (1954), ORDET (1955) and THE ELEPHANT MAN (1980) from making me teary-eyed while watching them! Admirable technical aspects aside (the decision to film in black-and-white and in slow motion and have it accompanied by choral music), the prologue felt vastly overdone from the get-go: watching these two characters make love, one would think that they had just discovered the act itself – which, naturally, is not the case since they have a son already who, at that very moment, is…). Given that their love-making antics provoked (willfully or not, consciously or otherwise) the trauma that afflicts them at present, it would have made much more sense to make the woman shun the sexual act and her husband’s company but, Dogme ‘95-style shooting notwithstanding, von Trier seems to have had anything but realism on his mind when making this; in fact, the husband not only becomes his wife’s shrink (cue endless reams of pretentious psycho-babble that elicit bland responses) but she periodically shags him senseless (as remuneration perhaps?). While I do not think that shacking up in a wooden cabin in the middle of nowhere makes much therapeutic sense either, at least, this viewer could appreciate the film’s one positive aspect: its fantastically-subverted antropomorphism (by which I mean the views of forest animals in their natural habitat and von Trier’s occasionally hallucinatory shots of talking foxes, undead birds and the observant “Three Beggars”). To come now to the film’s controversial pornographic elements – of both the sexual and torture varieties: von Trier may think otherwise but, frankly, erect penises and masturbation have become old hat material by now after almost 40 years of regular usage in both the ‘significant’ and exploitative fields of European arthouse cinema; on the other hand, my prior knowledge of what was going to happen did not stop me from laughing hysterically at the point where the wife implants the husband’s leg with a ‘mechanical’ contraption! I am being purposefully vague on the actual details involved so as not to spoil the thing for some poor, adventurous soul who feels the need to get every film maudit under his wing. Finally, the stars of the film – Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg – have been lauded here and elsewhere for their bravery in accepting these challenging (and potentially damaging) roles but, again, Dafoe had ‘proven’ himself already by being a rebellious, sexually-experienced Christ for Martin Scorsese back in 1988 and one would hardly expect the daughter of that notoriously taboo-bashing couple Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin – of whom, incidentally, I have accumulated a handful of films lately which (thankfully?) I have yet to see – to play it safe artistically!
Reply
post #1472 of 1550
11/22/09 at 11:50am
Here is a list of what I watched this week.  Note that anything in red is first time viewings.

11/19 -- Star Trek
11/20 -- Day of the Dead
11/20 -- Forty Guns
11/21 -- Justice League: The New Frontier
11/21 -- Wonder Woman
11/22 -- Norma Rae
11/22 -- Princess Diaries
__________________________
Total Movies Watched: 293
First Time Viewings: 121
Reply
post #1473 of 1550
11/22/09 at 5:11pm
Thread Starter 
von Trier may think otherwise but, frankly, erect penises and masturbation have become old hat material by now after almost 40 years of regular usage in both the ‘significant’ and exploitative fields of European arthouse cinema

I've bolded the part of your review that really jumped out at me.  I think certain people like you and I are going to walk away, in some respect, with a "so what" attitude in regards to the sex and violence but I think we're going to be in the minority.  I mentioned Franco in my review and I must push forward and say that this is the type of film he was making back in the 1970s except he didn't have a budget or great actors.  The entire "Dogma" style of filmmaking, I'm starting to feel, really did start with Franco.  Since we're both use to the hardcore, masturbating and tortured sex of a director like this, I think the shock factor does go down somewhat.At the same time, I can't imagine my mother, father or girlfriend watching this thing and not walking out on it.  

I think the sex here is going to shock many people even if they saw something more mainstream like IN THE CUT, which featured a hardcore oral scene.  I think the "erect penis" is still a shocking image for people in this country and I think it's the reason why any actor who does it is called brave even though hundreds of women appear naked in films each year.  I heard a few critics say that nothing shocking, in terms of sex, could happen after LAST TANGO IN PARIS but I never really believed that, at least in terms of the mainstream.  I thought THE DREAMERS was rather shocking in some of its stuff and even SHORTBUS, although that film seemed to want to be a porn.  Even KEN PARK, which I believe still hasn't had an official release in this country.  The majority of filmmakers, as Ebert recently pointed out, believe stuff like TRANSFORMERS 2 is "high art".  I think if you showed any mainstream person this film then they are going to be shocked and outraged.  Even though I'm quite jaded, there were a few things that threw me for a loop and afterwards I couldn't help but wonder what would have happened had I seen this in a theater with a group of people. 

I understand a lot of people are going to hate this movie but I too would question why this gets called "high art" while other "dirty" movies are called exploitation or trash.  Roger Ebert called I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE the worst film ever made but is its torture or sex any worse than what we see here?  The past thirty years films like F13, LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and others have been called trash yet this here, more graphic than those together, is being praised.  I believe George Kaplan once made a joke that any bad film would be considered art as long as it featured subtitles.  I know this film doesn't feature subtitles but I do question why this is art whereas some other title is trash. 

***MAJOR SPOILERS FOR ANTICHRIST***

I've been thinking about the "message" for several days now and many thoughts are running through my mind.  I read one opinion that I think I somewhat agree with.  I think the mother is so devistated that her child died when she could have stopped it but didn't because she was in a sexual frenzy.  I think the entire film is her trying to use this "pain" to get her kid back.  When she doesn't get the kid back then she feels she must take away what killed him and that's why she cut off her "pleasure part". 
Reply
post #1474 of 1550
11/22/09 at 9:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

***MAJOR SPOILERS FOR ANTICHRIST***

I've been thinking about the "message" for several days now and many thoughts are running through my mind.  I read one opinion that I think I somewhat agree with.  I think the mother is so devistated that her child died when she could have stopped it but didn't because she was in a sexual frenzy.  I think the entire film is her trying to use this "pain" to get her kid back.  When she doesn't get the kid back then she feels she must take away what killed him and that's why she cut off her "pleasure part". 

How does the business with the shoes fit in then?
Reply
post #1475 of 1550
11/23/09 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

von Trier may think otherwise but, frankly, erect penises and masturbation have become old hat material by now after almost 40 years of regular usage in both the ‘significant’ and exploitative fields of European arthouse cinema

I've bolded the part of your review that really jumped out at me.  I think certain people like you and I are going to walk away, in some respect, with a "so what" attitude in regards to the sex and violence but I think we're going to be in the minority.  I mentioned Franco in my review and I must push forward and say that this is the type of film he was making back in the 1970s except he didn't have a budget or great actors.  The entire "Dogma" style of filmmaking, I'm starting to feel, really did start with Franco.  Since we're both use to the hardcore, masturbating and tortured sex of a director like this, I think the shock factor does go down somewhat.At the same time, I can't imagine my mother, father or girlfriend watching this thing and not walking out on it.  

I think the sex here is going to shock many people even if they saw something more mainstream like IN THE CUT, which featured a hardcore oral scene.  I think the "erect penis" is still a shocking image for people in this country and I think it's the reason why any actor who does it is called brave even though hundreds of women appear naked in films each year.  I heard a few critics say that nothing shocking, in terms of sex, could happen after LAST TANGO IN PARIS but I never really believed that, at least in terms of the mainstream.  I thought THE DREAMERS was rather shocking in some of its stuff and even SHORTBUS, although that film seemed to want to be a porn.  Even KEN PARK, which I believe still hasn't had an official release in this country.  The majority of filmmakers, as Ebert recently pointed out, believe stuff like TRANSFORMERS 2 is "high art".  I think if you showed any mainstream person this film then they are going to be shocked and outraged.  Even though I'm quite jaded, there were a few things that threw me for a loop and afterwards I couldn't help but wonder what would have happened had I seen this in a theater with a group of people. 

I understand a lot of people are going to hate this movie but I too would question why this gets called "high art" while other "dirty" movies are called exploitation or trash.  Roger Ebert called I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE the worst film ever made but is its torture or sex any worse than what we see here?  The past thirty years films like F13, LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and others have been called trash yet this here, more graphic than those together, is being praised.  I believe George Kaplan once made a joke that any bad film would be considered art as long as it featured subtitles.  I know this film doesn't feature subtitles but I do question why this is art whereas some other title is trash. 

***MAJOR SPOILERS FOR ANTICHRIST***

I've been thinking about the "message" for several days now and many thoughts are running through my mind.  I read one opinion that I think I somewhat agree with.  I think the mother is so devistated that her child died when she could have stopped it but didn't because she was in a sexual frenzy.  I think the entire film is her trying to use this "pain" to get her kid back.  When she doesn't get the kid back then she feels she must take away what killed him and that's why she cut off her "pleasure part". 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Teller View Post

How does the business with the shoes fit in then?
 

My own interpretation of the events in the film is very different to Michael's and ties in with Martin's query.

What I think really happened is this: Gainsbourg's tenure in the cabin with her son, as she was preparing for her thesis on the evils inflicted on women through the ages (how more feminist can you get?), somehow made her flip and turn into an evil woman herself - intent, first and foremost, on inflicting pain on the male of the species which, in her warped mind, also stretched to her immediate family. Thus, she took to mistreating her kid (who, coincidentally, happened to be a boy) - by repeatedly putting on the wrong shoe and having him wander around the cabin and, later, the house by himself - and, of course, she finally vented her anger on Dafoe. The self-mutilation bit has less to do with punishing herself for the death of her child (which act I believe she was fully conscious of and did not want to prevent) and more with punishing her husband by robbing him of her "pleasure part"! Such a reading might make the horrific title more relevant as Gainsbourg somehow became possessed by the avenging spirit of womanhood or whatever...

I could have easily fleshed out my review to make comparisons with the works of other directors who specialized in high-pitched marital tragedies like Ingmar Bergman, John Cassavetes and Andrzej Zulawski but, being conscious of the 1000-word posting limit on IMDb, I decided to keep to the movie under review itself. Two films I was reminded of while watching and writing about the film were Bergman's CRIES AND WHISPERS (1972; in which Ingrid Thulin also mutilates her genitals) and Zulawski's POSSESSION (1981). I've watched the latter only once so far and my reaction was equally hostile at first but Zulawski's Audio Commentary made me 'appreciate' much more the point he was trying to make. The performances of Isabelle Adjani and Sam Neill here are every bit as brave as the ones in ANTICHRIST and I would love to hear Michael's thoughts on that one someday. Besides, it's a far more successful marriage of horror/sci-fi and marital drama and, just as Gainsbourg did, Adjani also emerged victorious at that year's Cannes Film Festival.   

Like Michael, I too wrote my review in its entirety right after I watched the movie and I immediately e-mailed it to that friend that I said had highly recommended it to me. He took exception to the fact that I said that ANTICHRIST would only be relevant to people with children but, what I actually meant to say is that the film's supporters could perhaps make that claim in its defence.

As for the film's shocking material, I reiterate that I sincerely doubt that the film was aimed for mainstream audiences (usually referred to, disaparagingly, as "Joe Six Packs"), scandal or no scandal. Rather, the film was intended for those 'adventurous' film viewers that have also seen THE DEVILS (1971), LAST TANGO IN PARIS (1972), IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES (1976), BAD LIEUTENANT (1992), ROMANCE (1999), BAISE-MOI (2000), IRREVERSIBLE (2002), THE BROWN BUNNY (2003), THE DREAMERS (2003), 9 SONGS (2006) or whatever the current film scandale happens to be. Which is why I felt that all that hardcore stuff felt (pardon the pun) so limp to the undersigned!

Edited by Mario Gauci - 11/23/09 at 10:00am
Reply
post #1476 of 1550
11/23/09 at 4:08pm
"Dracula" (1979) - 4.5 / 10

A pretty unique version of the story (based on the old Hamilton Deane play as well as Stoker's novel itself) sees the entire Harker/Transylvania portion of the plot removed.

This is a mixed bleesing though.
Unlike any other version we actually have a lot of time to cover Dracula's 'stay' in England. But it comes at the expense of perhaps the best portion of the story that contains some of the most memorable, effective and atmospheric set-pieces.
The screenplay does cover a few of the Transylvania moments by inserting them throughout the English sequences and changing their context; Like the wall climb, the cut finger, the mirror, the fed upon baby and the (strangely altered) "Children of the night' speech. But they lose much of their mysterious, scary, atmospheric power by not happening in Dracula's castle to a stranded and frightened Harker.

The less said about some of the cheesy seduction visual effects (a notorious sequence) and the soppy 'romance' scenes between Lucy and Dracula the better though.

But we have some very good moments here.
The shape changing aspect of Dracula is used well (even the bat looks not too bad, though it's stupid to have him change back from being a Wolf and be wearing clothes!!), the SFX and matte work is very good, Dracula has some good conversation sequences and sly manipulation scenes (at last 'The Count' part of Dracula is given a vital chance to shine), there are some effective scenes in the asylum and the sets are wonderful (even if Carfax Abbey has the most over the top cobwebs in cinematic history).

Some of the changes to the novel (you can edit Stoker's novel, but only idiots try to [U]change it[/U] and do so at their peril) are interesting but some are annoying.
Why on Earth switch Lucy with Mina? It's a needless and silly change that grates having Mina be killed and turned instead of Lucy. Making Mina the Daughter of Van Helsing is pointless artistically but gives a quicker way the get Abraham Van Helsing into the story. Sadly not much is made of the father/daughter aspect though...not even when Van Helsing has to despatch his own undead child.
And the big finale change as far as Van Helsing goes works okay as entertainment amazingly...but again to any fan of the story it does grate.

Olivier is pretty good, if rather hammy, as Van Helsing (a million times better and less hammy than Anthony Hopkins though!), Donald Pleasence is fun as a very much changed Dr Seward, Trevor Eve makes a pretty poor Harker and as 'The Count' Frank Langela is actually very, very good (hair aside) but is rather a damp squib as far as being a scary Vampire goes (much like Louis Jourdan in the more faithful UK TV version from 1977).

The ending though (after a pretty exciting finale fight with an effective, rare indeed, change as far as Dracula's 'demise' goes) is thrown into the toilet with a nonsensical, stuck with unintentionally funny visuals, 'twist' that seems like it was shoe-horned in to make way (though Director John Badham denies this) for a sequel.

It's directed with lots of style by Badham, but also at a rather leaden pace which is not helped by the strong emphasis on the 'romantic Count'. At least we are spared the God-awful 'love though the ages' garbage of the mostly awful "Bram Stoker's Dracula" though.

Some good things, some weak things, some bad things. But it is a better film than its often thought of and what it does good it actually does better than most other "Dracula" films.
So, not as remotely good as it really should have been, but a pretty nice try.
Reply
post #1477 of 1550
11/23/09 at 6:43pm
Thread Starter 

***MINOR SPOILERS FOR ANTICHRIST***

Hmm...after reading Mario's post I somewhat rethink my original theory on the film, although I'm not sure about her depression if she was just wanting to take it out on the men in her life.  The shoes and even the Three Beggars didn't really come to me in any way, shape or form so they're things that I'd have to continue to think about.  I loved BREAKING THE WAVES and DOGVILLE but never really felt the need to watch them a second time.  This might hold true with ANTICHRIST but I'm itching to give it another shot just to clear up a few things in my own mind.  I'd certainly jump at the chance to see that opening sequence on the big screen but it probably won't play anywhere around here.

*END*

With high art like NEW MOON taking up every screen, it's certainly understandable why this and a new Herzog film can't get on anything over a couple dozen screens. 


Octaman (1971)
 

Harry Essex
 

This semi, unofficial remake of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON doesn't shy away from ripping off various scenes from that film.  In this one, a group of scientists (and of course a money hungry POS) discover that there might be a half man, half octopus's in the Mexican swamps so they try to track him down.  Soon he's fighting back and killing everyone around.  Okay, this is a rather hard film to judge because there's no question that this is an awful movie.  Everything from the performances to the screenplay to the direction are downright bad.  There are some rather interesting things about the film and we can start off with director/writer Harry Essex.  He previously wrote the screenplay for Universal's MAN MADE MONSTER but also CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON itself so I guess he has the right to rip off his own work.  How he wrote them amazes me after watching this screenplay, which has the be one of the worst ever written because none of it ever makes any sense.  The movie never really makes it clear what the scientists are doing, where on earth they're at since the scenery is constantly changing and best of all is that they follow the monster in a RV and not a boat.  The top billed Pier Angeli, who some might remember from SOMEBODY UP THERE LIKES ME, died of a drug overdose during production, which certainly leaves a dark spot on the film.  Thirdly, future Oscar-winner Rick Baker did the monster costume and effects here.  Yes, it's obvious the thing is a rubber suit but I must admit that I liked the creation because it at least looks campy like the costumes from the 1950s horror films that this one is clearly trying to be like.  The violence in the film is pretty good as well as the swinging arms of the monster is always knocking eyes out or ripping flesh.  Again, if you're wanting art then I'd recommend checking out the work of Bunuel.  If you're wanting good, drive-in fun then this film really fits the bill.  This would make a perfect double feature with ZAAT, which I watched a few weeks earlier.

Jaws of Death (1981)
 

Bob Claver
 

It's common knowledge that THE EXORCIST and JAWS made a lot of money at the box office.  It's common knowledge that both films had countless, needless rips that would follow throughout the decade.  What isn't common knowledge is why it took so long for someone to try and take both films and mix them into one.  The film starts off on a train as a large snake breaks free and lands in a small Alabama town where it starts to kill people.  We then flash forward to a Priest (Fritz Weaver) whose father happened to have been fighting Druids or something and it turns out that Satan himself has taken over the body of this snake.  This true excitement leads to a dingy cave where the Priest must perform an exorcism on the snake.  I'm fairly convinced that Satan's an evil guy but if The Rolling Stone's Sympathy for the Devil thought me anything, it would be that evil Satan would be ashamed to be associated with this film.  There are bad movies then there are movies like this that make no sense at all and will leave you scratching your head every few minutes.  It should be noted that Dean Cundy (HALLOWEEN, THE FOG) did the cinematography here and Christina Applegate made her screen debut.  With that out of the way, this movie gets off to an incredibly bad start.  We're on the train when a number of stupid events take place and not a single one of them makes any sense.  The second man the snake goes after has a shot of the snake where we can easily see the glass between it and the man.  What's worse is that this piece of glass is not only seen but it's extremely dirty from previous takes  The story itself is all over the place as it's never quite clear what's going on as we got Satan taking the body of a snake but then we have the Druid plot thrown in for whatever reason.  As in JAWS, we have the evil mayor who wants to keep the story on the quiet side so that a dog track can come to town.  The performances are all bland to poor but we don't necessarily come to a movie like this for the performances.  For the most part the snake attack scenes are rather tame but there are a few quick shots of blood.  We get one stupid scene after another but in the end there's no doubt that this here is one of the worst rips of either JAWS or THE EXORCIST.

Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours Later (2009)
 

Anthony Giacchino
 

Another good documentary in the never ending lines of looks at the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  This one here takes a look at the first twenty-four hours after the assassination and points the spotlight on Lyndon Johnson who was forced to take off as the country was, as it seemed then, falling apart.  This is an extremely well-made documentary that has plenty of talking heads on board but they also offer up some voice re-creations of people who were in Dallas and around Kennedy and Johnson as all of this was going on.  The documentary does ask a lot of questions like why was it that Johnson didn't know what was going on with Kennedy even though he was staying only a few feet from where the dead President's body was.  The documentary really focuses in on Johnson and how no one was telling him anything even though he was technically the President.  The second half of the film deals with a lot of the heated debate that would come up between Johnson and Robert Kennedy who felt that the new President was moving too fast to get into office.  This is a good companion piece to JFK: 3 SHOTS THAT CHANGED AMERICA because this lets us see this history from the man who was right there getting something he really wanted but under very bad circumstances.  I loved the way the documentary tried to show what a bad situation he was in because he was so scared of the Kennedy name and family, fearing that they might try to destroy him, which many would feel that they'd later do.  I do take a few issues with how bad they make Johnson look but at the same time I think the film is just as hard on Robert Kennedy who really comes off in a bad light.  Mrs. Kennedy is shown in the grace that she always is and the stories of what happened on board Air Force One between her and the new President were quite harrowing.  
 


Edited by Michael Elliott - 11/23/09 at 6:57pm
Reply
post #1478 of 1550
11/26/09 at 8:57pm
Thread Starter 

Happy Days (1926)
 

Arvid E. Gillstrom
 

This short was taken from the famous Winnie Winkle comic strip with Ethelyn Gibson playing her here in one quick sequence.  The main story here is her kid sister Perry (Billie Butts) whose gang enters a baseball game against their rival gang.  While watching this film I couldn't help but think of the Our Gang series, which was certainly more entertaining and featured plenty more laughs.  I was really shocked at how unfunny this thing was and even though I'm really not familiar with the comic strip, I don't think that's the reason I didn't enjoy this film more.  The biggest problem is that every joke took the obvious route, which made the film appear even more dull than it might have been otherwise.  Not only is the film rather flat and unfunny but we get some rather typical for the time humor with the black kid, with white lips, getting the majority of the abuse.  The strange thing is that the good guys clubhouse has KKK written on their door and of course the only black kid happens to be on the other team.  How something like this got through even in 1926 is beyond me but it certainly left me scratching my head.

Cliff Edwards and His Buckaroos (1941)
 

Jean Negulesco
 

Cliff Edwards, playing himself, is working on a dude ranch when word gets around that some rich women are about to pay a visit.  The men clean the place up and await the big arrival but things aren't what they seem.  I must admit that this film ended and I was sitting there wondering what had happened.  The movie runs a brief 9-minutes but this thing was over before anything really happened.  There's one minor twist in the film so I'm guessing this is all that was suppose to have been delivered.  The movie itself isn't too bad as we get a couple quick music numbers including "I Can't Get Along Little Dogie", which is certainly the highlight of the film.  Edwards comes off quite natural here and manages to be charming as he does his thing. 
 


Day in Death Valley, A (1944)

A rather too laid back and bland entry in MGM's TravelTalks series takes us to Death Valley where we learn it got its name from a pioneer who, once leaving the place, looked back at all the death it causes and called it "Death Valley".  The first half of the film takes us to a Borax mine where we get to see various mines and forms of transportation that were used to get around.  We learn about everyone who went there looking for gold but turned up empty handed.  Once again there really aren't any major surprised in this entry but that's to be expected considering all of these had one thing in mind and that was to show places to people across the country who would never have another chance to see them for themselves.  On that level this series has always worked but this here isn't one of the better entries.  I thought the film wasted way too much time at the mines because we really don't learn too much and there are several small sequences where nothing is being said.  The visuals here are certainly the main reason to watch the film as those deadly valleys certainly look great in Technicolor.
 

Modern Guatemala City (1945)
 

TravelTalks entry takes us to Guatemala where we learn that it became the capital three years after the original was destroyed by an earthquake.  From there we learn that there are 170,000 people living there at the time and that many of them visit a theater downtown where they learn about other parts of the world by watching TravelTalks shorts.  The funniest moment in the film tells us about a law that was passed in 1931 where anyone elected to the government must show all of their earnings so that the people can make sure they didn't take any bribes while in office.  When their term is over, if their bank account has extra, unaccounted for money then they must return it.  This is a pretty good entry in the series as FitzPatrick's narration hits all the right notes and it was pretty funny seeing the TravelTalks ad at this theater.  Once again the Technicolor is the best friend as we get some great visuals including some really nice looking buildings.  Also on hand is a pretty good looking statue of Columbus. 

How to Raise a Baby (1938)
 

Roy Rowland
 

Robert Benchley returns for another in his "How to..." series with this one looking at how a father should raise his son.  We see how a father should take responsibility and not leave everything up to his wife and that includes getting up in the morning and giving the kid a bath.  We also learn how important it is to make sure you don't eat all of the kids food.  I've always said that Benchley is a tad bit hit and miss but this one here falls somewhere in the middle.  It's not a complete success but if you have eight minutes to kill then you'll find yourself entertained.  I watched this short two weeks after my own kid was born so I think this gave me a few more chuckles than it would have gotten otherwise.  The movie features a pretty good laugh when daddy is trying to get the kid to eat and another nice scene where both mom and dad pretend to be asleep so that the other will get up in the morning.  A few of the films in this series has Benchley talking to the viewer while all the action is going on but here he does the narration and keeps the movie itself silent.  I think this here works a lot better than when he's on the screen and directly talking to us while dealing with everything as the "actor".
 

Ancient Egypt (1938)
 

Nice entry in MGM's TravelTalks series takes a look at Egypt with the main key being to show us that not too much has changed over the past three-thousand years.  James A. FitzPatrick once again narrates all the story as we get to see various interesting locations with the highlight clearly being the Valley of Kings burial spot where thousands were buried throughout various centuries.  We get some brief talk about the most famous person, which of course was King Tut.  We then get to see some modern hotels that remain "true to the past" by still being surrounding by rock structures and other objects, which have been around for centuries.  Once again the real highlight is the Technicolor, which really does this film a lot of justice especially during those wide shots of the deserts and the beautiful sands.  The print shown on TCM was a little dirty but there's still enough clean color to really have the images jump off the screen.

Let's Talk Turkey (1939)
 

A rather bland Pete Smith short is pretty simple in terms of both execution and story.  We have a "turkey carving expert" show us the correct way to carve a turkey so that not as much meat gets thrown away.  We then see an average Joe asked by his wife to cut the turkey but of course everything goes wrong as he's nervous, doesn't know what he's doing and of course is given a dull knife.  The Pete Smith series from MGM offered countless good films but sadly this here isn't one of them.  There's really nothing funny here as the writing is just way too simple and constantly giving us the obvious gags, which the viewer will see coming from a mile away.  When you do finally see them, since you expected them, they don't get a single laugh.  The sad thing is that a pretty good looking turkey is wasted and not a single laugh comes from it.  The first part of the film showing us the proper way to cut a turkey is mildly entertaining but in all my years on Earth I've yet to see anyone else cut a turkey like this.
 

Pastoral Panoramas (1950)
 

This entry in the TravelTalks series takes us back to England where we learn that after WWII the country tried to make the effort to turn their land into a valuable asset.  We see the large farms with the entire family (including grandma) working and see a local blacksmith who doesn't appear to have grown with the times.  Also on hand is the burial site of poet Thomas Gray and the Cambridge American Military cemetery.  If you've seen one of these then you know what to expect and this entry lives up to the nice quality of the series.  Once again it's the Technicolor that really jumps out at you even if the print shown on TCM was in pretty bad condition.  The golden look of the crops is what really stands out as does the beautiful white crosses at the cemetery.  James A. FitzPatrick's narration once again fits the film.

Amazing Mr. Nordill, The (1947)
 

Joseph M. Newman
 

The 61st entry in John Nesbitt's Passing Parade series once again features a very interesting, if forgotten, bit of history.  The film tells the story of Everett Nordill (Leon Ames), a mastermind behind a counterfeiting ring, which included the help of his three young daughters.  A government man begins trailing Nordill but it seems impossible that he'll make a mistake to give himself away.  This is another winning entry in the series as the story itself is quite entertaining and the twist in how they were able to finally bring him down was pretty funny in a weird sort of way.  Once again the story itself is the main ingredient as all the films in the series depended on good storytelling to make everything work.  Ames, best known for his role in MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS, turns in another charming performance and really captures the "gentleman" side of his character.  The supporting cast is also pretty good in their roles even if none really jump out at you.  The film features some nice direction and a really good atmosphere that helps put you in the time that the film is set.
 

Reply
post #1479 of 1550
11/27/09 at 3:28pm
Thread Starter 

Girl Said No, The (1930)
 

Sam Wood
 

I'm not sure how many people know this but William Haines made three films in 1930 and they were so popular that he was voted the most popular actor of the year.  This was Haines first talkie after years in the silent era where he played obnoxious brats who would do anything to get his way.  In this film, he plays an obnoxious brat who returns home from college and refuses to settle down in any way, shape or form.  He reluctantly gets a job where he falls in love with the secretary (Lelia Hyams) but she wants nothing to do with him so he decides to bug her to death, kidnap her and torture her some more.  Okay, we all know that THE JAZZ SINGER was released in 1927 and it pretty much had people wondering if silents would ever be needed again.  I always point to 1928's THE WIND as proof that movies didn't need sound.  This film here is my second bit of evidence in this theory because Haines is so downright obnoxious that you'll with the film was silent so you wouldn't have to hear him.  Apparently MGM also released this in a silent version and I wouldn't mind seeing it because what we've got here is pretty bad on all levels.  I'd almost recommend people to watch this just to see how bad it actually is.  There are a couple good moments so I'll get them out of the way now.  There's a pretty funny sequence where Haines pays a waiter to throw some onion soup on his rival (Francis X. Bushman, Jr.).  Bushman, Jr. himself is pretty good here and there's also another decent sequence with Marie Dressler towards the end of the movie.  Now, for the bad, which is pretty much everything else.  For starters, Haines is so obnoxious that you won't be able to not hate him.  Not only is the actor himself way too over the top but his character is such a mean jerk that you want to see him beaten to a pulp.  That's not a good feeling to have for the lead actor.  The scenes with him pretty much forcing himself on the girl and kidnapping her doesn't work because of how much we hate him.  Hyams isn't any better as the female lead but the less said the better.  The technical side of the film is also quite poor as there are several sequences with the actors moving where it becomes quite hard to understand what they're saying as they move further away from the mic.  The opening sequence at the house is also pretty ugly to watch as several of the actors in the frame have their heads cut off.  The biggest sin of this turkey is that there's just not enough laughs to carry a 91-minute movie.  Perhaps had this been 60 or 65 minutes then it might have worked but not at this long time.  It's worth noting that there's a joke where one character says he doesn't understand why people would be against birth control in regards to Haines.  I'm not sure how many films this early mentioned birth control but the quote itself is something I have to agree with in regards to this character.
 

Iron Major, The (1943)
 

Ray Enright
 

By the numbers bio pic from RKO features Pat O'Brien in the role of William 'Frank' Cavanaugh, a top football coach who gave up his career to enter WWI where he became a hero.  After the war he went back to coaching where he ended up having one of the best winning percentages in football history.  There are some nice things about this bio pic but in the end there's just too many familiar items to make it a complete winner.  You can also clearly see that RKO didn't have too much money to spend because there's way too much stock footage from either earlier silent movies or just newsreels.  This is an extremely big problem when we're watching one of the footballs games and we're suppose to be caught up in what's going on but we're just seeing stock footage with cutaways to O'Brien sitting on the sideline.  This certainly takes one out of the action and this also happens during the war scenes.  Some of the war scenes contain actual footage and these moments are among the best in the film as O'Brien does a very good job at motivating his men before going into battle.  These speeches are also very well handled by the actor in terms of the football talk as he easily films the coach role as he did earlier in COLLEGE COACH and of course KNUTE ROCKNE, ALL AMERICAN.  He's fine in the role as is Ruth Warrick and Robert Ryan in their supporting roles.  The film moves along at a pretty good speed but one can't help but feel there's no real direction going on as the film is all over the place in what it's trying to do.  At one point it wants to be a football film.  The next minutes a complete bio of the man.  The next minute it's hyping up the patriotic tone, which is understandable considering what was going on when the movie was originally released.  None of the three things really come together and in the end we're left with a movie that offers nothing new to the genre. 
 

Federal Man (1950)
 

Robert Emmett Tansey
 

After another agent is gunned down, narcotics Agent Phil Sherrin (William Henry) leads the investigation, which takes him from big cities down to small Mexican towns.  He and his men are not only trying to find the drug dealers but also put an end to their violence.  This film turned out to be a pretty rare one when it recently got its debut on Turner Classic Movies but I have to wonder why they'd put a thing like this on during prime time.  This is certainly a "C" movie that features some well known "B" actors in a rather bland and predictable little drama that really doesn't have too much going for it outside of the nice cast.  The biggest problem with the film is that it tries to be a lot smarter than it actually is.  This is the type of film that tries to act like it knows a lot of behind the scenes stuff when everything we're watching is pretty laid back, boring and really just comes off as being unoriginal.  The movie runs a short 67-minutes but the film seems twice as long due to the slow pacing and the fact that it seems the story never really knows where it wants to go.  The cast is full of veterans with many who appeared in over one hundred films.  Some might remember lead actor Henry from small parts in films like THE THIN MAN and TARZAN ESCAPES.  He doesn't really put too much energy into his role nor does Lyle Talbot in his few scenes.  Vet Robert Shayne and newcomer Joe Turkel also appear in the film.  Movita, best known for playing a love interest in 1935's MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY and being Marlon Brando's future wife, appears as a Spanish dancer.  Fans of "C" movies might be tempted to check this out like I was but there really wasn't anything here that grabbed my attention.  The opening sequence is meant to be full of suspense but it falls flat on its face as does everything that follows.
 

Hallelujah I'm a Bum (1933)
 

Lewis Milestone

Charming musical has Al Jolson playing a New York tramp who is more than happy to live, play and act the role of a bum.  He begins to have second thoughts when he saves a girl (Madge Evans) from suicide and then learns she belongs to his Mayor (Frank Morgan) friend.  There's no secret that I'm not a fan of Jolson's THE JAZZ SINGER and this here is only the second film of his that I've seen and it was certainly good enough to make me want to seek out more.  This is a rather strange mix of politics, music, comedy, romance and all of it set during the Great Depression.  This was a pretty surreal film because it mixes so many genres and I really can't put my finger on what worked so well but the entire film has a certain glow to it that makes it rather irresistible for fans of Hollywood's Golden Age.  The star here is without a doubt Jolson who really fits the role of the bum quite well.  His happy-go-lucky attitude and walk really jumps off the screen and can make one appreciate the film's rather strange message that unemployment is a good thing.  The movie certainly takes some dark thoughts and turns them around for a warmth and for this the movie really can't be appreciated even more.  Jolson is what sells the material but Evans is just as charming and Morgan makes for a good semi-villain.  Co-star Harry Langdon nearly steals the film as the sad-faced Egghead.  I wouldn't say any of the songs were true masterpieces but they're all quite catchy with "Hallelujah, I'm a Bum" and "Bumper Found a Grand" really sticking out as the best.  I think the love triangle is the weakest aspect of the film and I would have preferred more music over kisses but this is still an enjoyable little gem that certainly shows Jolson off in a very good light.
 

Looking Forward (1933)
 

Clarance Brown
 

Extremely well-acted drama from MGM is a rather depressing tale during its first half only to pour too much sugar during the second part.  The film takes place during the Depression as Lewis Stone is forced with the fact that his department store is losing too much money and he is forced to lay off several people including one (Lionel Barrymore) who has been with the company for over forty-years.  Soon things are getting even worse and Lewis finds himself nearly broke when someone makes an offer for his store.  Barrymore gets top-billing and his name over the title but he's got a rather small role and only appears at the start and end of the film.  The movie clearly belongs to Stone who turns in a marvelous performance and really makes this film worth seeking.  The Depression-era tone of the film certainly fits in well today and one can't help but feel a lot of the messages being said in this movie could be said today.  There are some truly depressing moments in this film including the start where Lewis has to lay off Barrymore.  The acting these two give during this sequence is certainly spell bounding as they both perfectly nail the situation and really make you feel everything their characters are saying.  Barrymore perfectly captures the depression of his character early on and then matches the happiness that would later follow.  Colin Clive of FRANKENSTEIN fame has a small role here that doesn't give him too much to do but fans of the horror genre will still enjoy seeing him.  The films title was taken from a speech given by F.D.R. and there's no question that the heart was in the right place even though the final third has way too much sugar than what was really needed.  Considering a real Depression was going on, it's understandable that the studio wanted to say something with this film so I'm sure it worked better back when it was released.  Fans of the two actors will certainly want to check this one out as both men give wonderful performances.
 

Woody Guthrie: Ain't Got No Home (2006)
 

Part of the American Masters series, this one taking a look at the life and career of Woody Guthrie.  Pete Seeger, Bruce Springsteen, various friends, Woody's children and ex-wife are among the people telling his story and what a story it really is.  Being a major fan of Bob Dylan, I had always heard Guthrie stories from him but I never really dug too deeply to learn more about the man and after watching this wonderful documentary I'm really kicking myself for that.  The documentary starts off at Woody's childhood where he saw his mother go crazy and end up in an asylum.  He would eventually end up in an orphanage before heading out on his own to try and make his way through the world, which was going through a Depression.  He eventually got interested in a guitar and soon started writing songs about all the pain he was seeing around him.  The documentary goes into great detail about Woody's family life as well as what he was going through musically.  There were three sides of his music and all three are looked at including his brief period of writing children songs for a daughter who would eventually get killed in a freak accident.  Being able to hear stories from his children and wife was the most fascinating thing here because not too many documentaries of people who has passed away decades before can offer this.  One of the talking heads says that Guthrie's life was that of something Shakespeare would have written and I'd certainly agree considering how sad his final decade would be as his mind slowly started to go away.  The film features countless audio recordings from Guthrie himself as well as many, many songs.  The story about him recording one-hundred and fifty songs in two days was amazing all by itself. 

13 Frightened Girls! (1963)
 

William Castle
 

Director Castle would end up having two strange pictures released in 1963 with this being one and the other being his extremely poor remake THE OLD DARK HOUSE.  This film here isn't quite as bad but it's certainly ever bit as strange.  The film starts off at a boarding school in Switzerland where the thirteen girls of the title, all daughters to diplomats, get on a bus and head for London.  Once there, the American girl, Candy (Kathy Dunn) expresses her love for the much older agent (Murray Hamilton) who is on the hot seat with her father (Hugh Marlowe).  To get her crush back in good standings, the teenage girl uses her brains and body (!?!) to gather information.  This is an extremely bizarre little film that certainly deserves to be forgotten even though it does contain a couple interesting things.  I guess the best way to sum this film up is by thinking of Nancy Drew in a Disney movie surrounded by the weird Cold War themes that you'd see in some drive-in picture.  The film gets off to a rather strange start as we see the teenage girl going into the office of the much older Hamilton and pretty much throwing herself on him.  She ends up throwing herself on a couple other men throughout the movie and considering this film is aimed at kids, seeing that type of thing was certainly rather strange.  Dunn does a pretty good job in the film as she's certainly cute and charming enough to pull off the role.  Hamilton and Marlowe just go through the numbers as does the rest of the cast members.  The entire film doesn't work for one main reason and that's the screenplay, which is all over the place and never really makes too much sense.  The movie runs 89-minutes, which really drags at times because there are countless scenes that really don't go anywhere.  Fans of Castle might want to check this out but they're bound to leave disappointed.

Arsene Lupin (1932)
 

Jack Conway
 

When John Barrymore got out of his contract with Warner, MGM wasted no time in signing him and even lesser time in putting him in a film with his brother Lionel.  This was the first of five films they'd make together and their easy to spot rivalry really makes this film the charming gem that it is.  An elderly detective (Lionel) is convinced that the Duke of Charmerace (John) is the infamous jewel thief known as Arsene Lupin.  The detective will stop at nothing to prove his thoughts and that includes bringing in a sexy spy (Karen Morley).  The story itself isn't anything ground breaking or Oscar-worthy but it is good enough to build up two nice characters and then stand back and let the actors do all the work.  Fans of the brothers will certainly get a kick out of seeing the two men working together as both deliver very strong performances and they really make this film worth seeking out.  What works best is the comic timing that the two men bring to the table as well as their rivalry.  Each scene that the two men are in you can tell that they are trying to out act the other and this adds a charm that no two other actors could have captured.  Just take a look at the sequence at the start when Lionel arrests John thinking that he's lying about being the Duke.  Just watch this scene and then compare it to a later scene where John is holding Lionel captive until he can prove that he's really a cop.  Morley also fits into the threesome quite well as she has an undeniable sexual tension with John and some fun comic touches with Lionel.  The scene where she introduces herself to the Duke while naked in his bed is a pre-code gem.  Some could argue that a stronger "story" would have helped matters and it might have but the cast doesn't even bother to speak with French accents so there's no doubt that the studio was just trying to get the two men in the same film.  The ending packs a terrific punch as everything gets closed up very tightly and in a way that everyone, including the viewer, wins.

Poor Pretty Eddie (1975)
 

Chris Robinson, David Worth

This drive-in flick has gathered a rather large cult following over the years as it mixes the blaxploitation and hickploitation genres and surprisingly features some well known actors.  A black musician (Leslie Uggams) finds herself stuck in the South after her car dies on her.  She checks into a rundown cabin resort ran by the once star Bertha (Shelley Winters) and her secret lover Eddie (Michael Christian) who has dreams of becoming a star.  Eddie falls for the black woman who of course is repulsed by the redneck so he just rapes her and soon she's being held hostage by the weird family and even the nutty Sheriff (Slim Pickens).  I had heard a lot of bad things about this movie but it wasn't nearly as bad as its reputation but then again, it's not too good either.  The movie isn't as wild or as crazy as one might think considering the subject matter as the violence isn't ever too graphic and even the rape scene is rather tame.  The rape scene is still rather rememberable because they have a country love song in the back group with quick edits to scenes of dogs humping out in the front yard.  The film certainly manages to create a unique atmosphere with its low budget and there's no question that it has a surreal feel from start to finish but in the end there's really not enough here to keep the thing going and being entertaining throughout.  What does work are some rather campy performances by both Winters and Pickens.  Winters, as was normal for this part of her career, makes countless jokes in reference to her weight and it's funny to see her in something like this just a couple years after picking up her Oscar.  Pickens in that dumb, racist redneck that you can't help but love because he doesn't know how dumb or racist he actually is.  The actor certainly gets into the part and manages to deliver a few nice laughs.  Uggams isn't too bad in her role but it's Ted Cassidy who steals the film as a weird assistant.  What really hurts the film is the lead character who really comes off very stuck up and rather rude before any of the stuff begins happening to her.  You really can't like her very much so when these bad things start to happen you really can't root for her overly much because of how much you dislike her from the first half of the film.  Drive-in and exploitation fans will certainly want to check this one out but others should stay clear.
 

Reply
post #1480 of 1550
11/28/09 at 12:02am
Winter Light (rewatch) - Hard to believe it's been 5 years since I last watched this. It seemed so fresh in my memory. But I'd forgotten how well it ties the "trilogy" together, openly mocking the false words of comfort at the end of Through a Glass Darkly and making frequent reference to "God's silence". This is hard to reconcile with Bergman's later assertion that he never intended them to be thought of a trilogy. It doesn't really matter, though... as part of the trilogy or on its own, it's brilliant either way. His most pointed, direct discussion and criticism of faith. Nykvist's understated, stark photography and some incredible performances. Still one of my favorites. Rating: 10


Wings of Desire (rewatch, Blu-Ray) - Well, I still think that this movie is kind of a "Chicken Soup for the Soul" thing, at times very trite. But it does have such an entrancing, hypnotic quality to it. I like being in the world of this film, but afterwards I feel rather "meh" about it. Seems that a lot of my Blu-Ray purchases lately have been too hastily made, I'm still on the fence about this one. I'll have to sleep on it, I guess. Rating: 8-9


Crying Out Love, in the Center of the World - The Japanese must have a word for this kind of adolescent melodrama, they sure seem to crank out a lot of them. Defining characteristics: gently paced, often nostalgic, bittersweet, tinkly score with a quiet pop song over the end credits, frequently features a romance with some kind of twist. This one doesn't do much to stand out from the others, but since I generally enjoy this type of thing, I didn't mind. A little too long, though. Rating: 7


The Silence (rewatch) - This film really speaks to the power of context. What would one make of it without knowing its title, and that it's part of the "faith trilogy"? Maybe it would just seem like a pointless, David Lynch-ian study in bleakness. But I felt keenly aware that it was conveying the absolute absence of God. Despite not mentioning God once (and perhaps because of this), you are overwhelmed by His silence. And while nothing in it is the type of thing so horrible as to make someone exclaim "there is no God!", it's all drenched in this feeling of grim despair and emptiness. I've previously been unimpressed by this movie, but now on the third viewing I'm awestruck by how masterfully Bergman creates such a palpable sense of doom, a "spiritual void" as the DVD case proclaims. This is not the work of a man thumbing his nose at religion (as could be said of Winter Light) but rather a man violently extracting it out of himself. And Nykvist's photography here is some of his best. The performances are excellent, although you could argue that both Thulin and Lindblom lay on the hysteria a little bit thick at a couple of points. But overall, this is really powerful stuff, a film that's grown on me immensely. Rating: 9


I Come With the Rain - I've been waiting a damn long time a new Anh Hung Tran movie. It's been 9 years since The Vertical Ray of the Sun. But this is a far cry from the delicate serenity of that film and The Scent of Green Papaya. It's closer to Tran's violent crime drama Cyclo, but it's even more of a disappointment. Much more. It's a goddamn mess. I'm guessing this film was plagued with problems... it apparently finished shooting 2 years ago. Also, it was originally supposed to star Harvey Keitel. Instead we get Josh Hartnett. Also tagging along are Korean superstar Byung-hun Lee, Japanese superstar Takuya Kimura, and Hong Kong superstar Shawn Yue (and, as always, Tran's lovely wife). Their English acting for all of them is quite awkward, including Hartnett. But that's not the worst of it. The film is part Hong Kong cop thriller... a small part, which is unfortunate, because that might have been its best chance at success. A much larger part is a serial killer flick in the vein of every goddamn serial killer flick since Silence of the Lambs. Clichéd and stupid. And wrapped up in all this is a horribly labored religious allegory. It's an unsatisfying, confusing, boring mish-mash. And there's something weird with the cinematography. Either they did something funny with the lighting, or an awful lot of it is green-screened. Perhaps quickie replacement scenes for stuff previously with Keitel? I dunno, but it looks wrong. There is a germ of a good idea here, and a few of the images are quite striking (and Hartnett really isn't THAT bad)... but I'm still tremendously let down. Rating: 3
Reply
post #1481 of 1550
11/28/09 at 5:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

***MINOR SPOILERS FOR ANTICHRIST***

Hmm...after reading Mario's post I somewhat rethink my original theory on the film, although I'm not sure about her depression if she was just wanting to take it out on the men in her life.  The shoes and even the Three Beggars didn't really come to me in any way, shape or form so they're things that I'd have to continue to think about.  I loved BREAKING THE WAVES and DOGVILLE but never really felt the need to watch them a second time.  This might hold true with ANTICHRIST but I'm itching to give it another shot just to clear up a few things in my own mind.  I'd certainly jump at the chance to see that opening sequence on the big screen but it probably won't play anywhere around here.

*END*


Octaman (1971)
 

Harry Essex
 

This semi, unofficial remake of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON doesn't shy away from ripping off various scenes from that film.  In this one, a group of scientists (and of course a money hungry POS) discover that there might be a half man, half octopus's in the Mexican swamps so they try to track him down.  Soon he's fighting back and killing everyone around.  Okay, this is a rather hard film to judge because there's no question that this is an awful movie.  Everything from the performances to the screenplay to the direction are downright bad.  There are some rather interesting things about the film and we can start off with director/writer Harry Essex.  He previously wrote the screenplay for Universal's MAN MADE MONSTER but also CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON itself so I guess he has the right to rip off his own work.  How he wrote them amazes me after watching this screenplay, which has the be one of the worst ever written because none of it ever makes any sense.  The movie never really makes it clear what the scientists are doing, where on earth they're at since the scenery is constantly changing and best of all is that they follow the monster in a RV and not a boat.  The top billed Pier Angeli, who some might remember from SOMEBODY UP THERE LIKES ME, died of a drug overdose during production, which certainly leaves a dark spot on the film.  Thirdly, future Oscar-winner Rick Baker did the monster costume and effects here.  Yes, it's obvious the thing is a rubber suit but I must admit that I liked the creation because it at least looks campy like the costumes from the 1950s horror films that this one is clearly trying to be like.  The violence in the film is pretty good as well as the swinging arms of the monster is always knocking eyes out or ripping flesh.  Again, if you're wanting art then I'd recommend checking out the work of Bunuel.  If you're wanting good, drive-in fun then this film really fits the bill.  This would make a perfect double feature with ZAAT, which I watched a few weeks earlier.


Jaws of Death (1981)
 

Bob Claver
 

It's common knowledge that THE EXORCIST and JAWS made a lot of money at the box office.  It's common knowledge that both films had countless, needless rips that would follow throughout the decade.  What isn't common knowledge is why it took so long for someone to try and take both films and mix them into one.  The film starts off on a train as a large snake breaks free and lands in a small Alabama town where it starts to kill people.  We then flash forward to a Priest (Fritz Weaver) whose father happened to have been fighting Druids or something and it turns out that Satan himself has taken over the body of this snake.  This true excitement leads to a dingy cave where the Priest must perform an exorcism on the snake.  I'm fairly convinced that Satan's an evil guy but if The Rolling Stone's Sympathy for the Devil thought me anything, it would be that evil Satan would be ashamed to be associated with this film.  There are bad movies then there are movies like this that make no sense at all and will leave you scratching your head every few minutes.  It should be noted that Dean Cundy (HALLOWEEN, THE FOG) did the cinematography here and Christina Applegate made her screen debut.  With that out of the way, this movie gets off to an incredibly bad start.  We're on the train when a number of stupid events take place and not a single one of them makes any sense.  The second man the snake goes after has a shot of the snake where we can easily see the glass between it and the man.  What's worse is that this piece of glass is not only seen but it's extremely dirty from previous takes  The story itself is all over the place as it's never quite clear what's going on as we got Satan taking the body of a snake but then we have the Druid plot thrown in for whatever reason.  As in JAWS, we have the evil mayor who wants to keep the story on the quiet side so that a dog track can come to town.  The performances are all bland to poor but we don't necessarily come to a movie like this for the performances.  For the most part the snake attack scenes are rather tame but there are a few quick shots of blood.  We get one stupid scene after another but in the end there's no doubt that this here is one of the worst rips of either JAWS or THE EXORCIST.

 

Hallelujah I'm a Bum (1933)
 

Lewis Milestone

Charming musical has Al Jolson playing a New York tramp who is more than happy to live, play and act the role of a bum.  He begins to have second thoughts when he saves a girl (Madge Evans) from suicide and then learns she belongs to his Mayor (Frank Morgan) friend.  There's no secret that I'm not a fan of Jolson's THE JAZZ SINGER and this here is only the second film of his that I've seen and it was certainly good enough to make me want to seek out more.  This is a rather strange mix of politics, music, comedy, romance and all of it set during the Great Depression.  This was a pretty surreal film because it mixes so many genres and I really can't put my finger on what worked so well but the entire film has a certain glow to it that makes it rather irresistible for fans of Hollywood's Golden Age.  The star here is without a doubt Jolson who really fits the role of the bum quite well.  His happy-go-lucky attitude and walk really jumps off the screen and can make one appreciate the film's rather strange message that unemployment is a good thing.  The movie certainly takes some dark thoughts and turns them around for a warmth and for this the movie really can't be appreciated even more.  Jolson is what sells the material but Evans is just as charming and Morgan makes for a good semi-villain.  Co-star Harry Langdon nearly steals the film as the sad-faced Egghead.  I wouldn't say any of the songs were true masterpieces but they're all quite catchy with "Hallelujah, I'm a Bum" and "Bumper Found a Grand" really sticking out as the best.  I think the love triangle is the weakest aspect of the film and I would have preferred more music over kisses but this is still an enjoyable little gem that certainly shows Jolson off in a very good light.


13 Frightened Girls! (1963)
 

William Castle
 

Director Castle would end up having two strange pictures released in 1963 with this being one and the other being his extremely poor remake THE OLD DARK HOUSE.  This film here isn't quite as bad but it's certainly ever bit as strange.  The film starts off at a boarding school in Switzerland where the thirteen girls of the title, all daughters to diplomats, get on a bus and head for London.  Once there, the American girl, Candy (Kathy Dunn) expresses her love for the much older agent (Murray Hamilton) who is on the hot seat with her father (Hugh Marlowe).  To get her crush back in good standings, the teenage girl uses her brains and body (!?!) to gather information.  This is an extremely bizarre little film that certainly deserves to be forgotten even though it does contain a couple interesting things.  I guess the best way to sum this film up is by thinking of Nancy Drew in a Disney movie surrounded by the weird Cold War themes that you'd see in some drive-in picture.  The film gets off to a rather strange start as we see the teenage girl going into the office of the much older Hamilton and pretty much throwing herself on him.  She ends up throwing herself on a couple other men throughout the movie and considering this film is aimed at kids, seeing that type of thing was certainly rather strange.  Dunn does a pretty good job in the film as she's certainly cute and charming enough to pull off the role.  Hamilton and Marlowe just go through the numbers as does the rest of the cast members.  The entire film doesn't work for one main reason and that's the screenplay, which is all over the place and never really makes too much sense.  The movie runs 89-minutes, which really drags at times because there are countless scenes that really don't go anywhere.  Fans of Castle might want to check this out but they're bound to leave disappointed.


Arsene Lupin (1932)
 

Jack Conway
 

When John Barrymore got out of his contract with Warner, MGM wasted no time in signing him and even lesser time in putting him in a film with his brother Lionel.  This was the first of five films they'd make together and their easy to spot rivalry really makes this film the charming gem that it is.  An elderly detective (Lionel) is convinced that the Duke of Charmerace (John) is the infamous jewel thief known as Arsene Lupin.  The detective will stop at nothing to prove his thoughts and that includes bringing in a sexy spy (Karen Morley).  The story itself isn't anything ground breaking or Oscar-worthy but it is good enough to build up two nice characters and then stand back and let the actors do all the work.  Fans of the brothers will certainly get a kick out of seeing the two men working together as both deliver very strong performances and they really make this film worth seeking out.  What works best is the comic timing that the two men bring to the table as well as their rivalry.  Each scene that the two men are in you can tell that they are trying to out act the other and this adds a charm that no two other actors could have captured.  Just take a look at the sequence at the start when Lionel arrests John thinking that he's lying about being the Duke.  Just watch this scene and then compare it to a later scene where John is holding Lionel captive until he can prove that he's really a cop.  Morley also fits into the threesome quite well as she has an undeniable sexual tension with John and some fun comic touches with Lionel.  The scene where she introduces herself to the Duke while naked in his bed is a pre-code gem.  Some could argue that a stronger "story" would have helped matters and it might have but the cast doesn't even bother to speak with French accents so there's no doubt that the studio was just trying to get the two men in the same film.  The ending packs a terrific punch as everything gets closed up very tightly and in a way that everyone, including the viewer, wins. 



Wow, Mike - quite a nicely eclectic bunch of films there that you've watched in quick succession!

Firstly, one final thing on ANTICHRIST (2009): I may be completely off here but, to me, The Three Beggars stood in for The Three Wise Men. Just as the latter trio came to witness Christ's birth, the forest creatures in von Trier's film came to witness the death of the Antichrist (i.e. the crazed Gainsbourg)...or something like that.
 
Anyway, I first heard of OCTAMAN (1971) via "Leonard Maltin"'s BOMB review and, even though it made me mildly interested in checking it out, I never really sought it out until I've read your write-up over here (thanks for namedropping Bunuel, too)...and, guess what, I've found it easily available (through my usual sources) but I still am not too sure if I should bite the bullet and acquire it! Admittedly, the Harry Essex-Kerwin Mathews-Pier Angeli combo does help its chances somewhat...   

The same can't be said about JAWS OF SATAN (1981): I've never heard of it and I HATE snakes so I can easily do without it! Having said that, that crazy plot must be unique and a couple of good actors are in it, too (Fritz Weaver, Norman Lloyd). Needless to say, I can also acquire a copy of this one at the flick of a button but I'd much rather go for the more promising (and star-studded) VENOM (1981) that I've also added to my collection quite recently...

I've purchased an original DVD of HALLELUJAH I'M A BUM (1933) a couple of years ago during an online sale and I enjoyed it quite a bit - apart from enhancing Lewis Milestone's reputation as a director of remarkable versatility (despite excelling best in war movies). As it happens, I've also acquired a handful of Al Jolson titles myself lately: MAMMY (1930), WONDER BAR (1934), ROSE OF WASHINGTON SQUARE (1939; which I should be getting tomorrow, although I'm already familiar with it) and SWANEE RIVER (1939). I don't agree that THE JAZZ SINGER (1927) is an awful film but, for what it's worth, I still haven't purchased Warners' 3-Discer either!

Despite another BOMB dismissal from Maltin & Co., I always intended to acquire William Castle's 13 FRIGHTENED GIRLS (1963) one way or another and, thankfully, I waited long enough for an "official" DVD to become available. Again, Michael's review has a lot to do with my springing for it just now...what with his remarking on its strangeness 5 times during his brief comments! 

Finally, I come to ARSENE LUPIN (1932): although I've long been aware of the Barrymores version and its 1938 follow-up with Melvyn Douglas, I've only acquired both of them earlier this year and has yet to see either. So far, I've been acquainted with the French thief through 2 stylish French movies of the 1950s (the first shot in color and directed by the great Jacques Becker in 1956) and the cult anime` series of the 1980s which I used to lap up during my childhood days. I've also fairly recently come across a French TV series hailing from the 1970s but I've yet to lay my hands on it...

Speaking of the original 1932 version of ARSENE LUPIN, I had first acquired it via a truly wretched TV-to-VHS-to-DVD-to-DivX copy but, thankfully, following (again) Michael's timely comments, I came across a good-looking TCM-sourced copy that is 'on its way' to me as we speak. Besides, this rare upgrade also made me correct a couple of other faulty copies that I had in my collection, namely: THE PHENIX CITY STORY (1955) - I have now acquired the full-length 100-minute version of this acclaimed Phil Karlson noir that also includes the generally-omitted documentary prologue; NOT OF THIS EARTH (1957) - I had previously seen Roger Corman's ultra-rare sci-fi classic via a crappy 16mm print-sourced copy but this has now been rendered obsolete by a vastly-improved copy taken from the R2 DVD; SANDS OF THE KALAHARI (1965) -my previous edited, pan-and-scanned, TV-sourced copy of Cy Endfield's star-studded desert adventure has just been replaced by a Widescreen copy of the full-length version; and, finally, William Castle's totally unique SHANKS (1975) - again, the version I had watched looked positively horrendous but the upgraded copy looks a hundred times better!  
Reply
post #1482 of 1550
11/29/09 at 11:54am
Mario, do not bother with Jaws of Satan.  I also watched it recently and it has no suspense, no good snake attacks and a confused and nonsensical plot.  On the plus side, the plot is certainly unique, the production values are higher than you would expect and Fritz Weaver is OK.
Reply
post #1483 of 1550
11/29/09 at 6:27pm
Thread Starter 

Mario, I had heard OCTAMAN was quite rare until recently when a remastered print turned up on THIS (a new station here).  I had heard that older prints were way too dark to see what was going on but the print shown here was in great shape.  Not the greatest film ever mad but it was fun.  As far as JAWS OF SATAN goes, a real disappointment because I usually love killer snake movies.  Snakes scare the hell out of me so that's why I enjoy watching the movies so much but this one here did nothing. 

As for Jolson, I'd really like to check out more of his films but I'll wait until they shown up on TCM.  I know Warner's DVD-R market has a few of them but I'm not really willing to pay that much for them.  I plan on ordering some of their short collections in the next few days but the features will have to wait for better deals or the store in Louisville starts to carry more of them (they do have the horror titles for rent).

As for Castle, I use to call him one of my favorite horror directors but that was before I started watching more of his films.  I've seen quite a few now and I must admit that I'm starting to lose my appeal for him because some of the last few have been quite bad.  I'll always love THE TINGLER and HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL but I can't say I enjoy Castle enough to really search out some of his rarer titles. 


Star Trek (2009)
 

J.J. Abrams
 

Okay, I must start off by saying I'm not a fan of the series and I'm not a hater.  I've seen one of the original films and I don't recall a thing about it.  I've watched bits and pieces of the original TV series over the years but not a single episode complete.  So, I'm writing this as an outsider so I have no feelings going into the film in regards to anything that does or doesn't happen and how things might be different than what came before this.  What story is here centers on Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) as the two must put aside their differences to try and stop an evil leader (Eric Bana) who plans on destroying just about everything he can.  I guess it should be said that this is a rather amazing production that has one great action scene after another.  The visual look of the film is quite amazing and it always amuses me to watch something like this and know that there are people out there with this type of imagination that can really open up and let stuff like this fly out.  The CGI-effects are mighty impressive and even the cast members, for the most part, offer up nice performances.  I'd also add that Abrams handles all the material extremely well and delivers not only a brilliant look but the action scenes all try to top the previous one.  With that said, there's a lot to look at but there's very little heart or soul to be had.  Perhaps fans of the series or previous movies will disagree but to me this was just one big action picture full of eye candy but nothing else in terms of a story.  The CGI effects, while great, take up 98% of everything we see so they are the movie and not the characters, their actions or anything else.  I'm certainly not expecting Bergman here but I did expect a little more.  This is certainly a summer blockbuster at its highest levels in terms of action, explosions and all around spectacle, which will be reason enough for millions to view it and enjoy it.
 

Four Christmases (2008)
 

Seth Gordon
 

It's hard to believe that a comedy like this would feature five Academy Award winners but that's the case and the end results aren't as bad as some critics made them appear.  Reese Witherspoon and Vince Vaughn play the perfect couple who enjoy their lives together, which doesn't include their family.  After a lie they've been telling is blown, they're forced to visit all four of their divorced parents in one day.  This comedy is certainly as light weight as they come but the terrific cast makes it worth watching even though you'll still be scratching your head wondering how so many Oscar-winners ended up in one film.  You have Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek, Jon Voight and Mary Steenburgen playing all the parents but you also have famous faces like Jon Favreau, Tim McGraw and Dwight Yoakam filling out supporting roles.  With all these famous faces you can't help but stay mildly entertained throughout the rather short 89-minute running time.  The jokes are all rather childish but this is a family comedy after all.  We get several jokes with Witherspoon not liking children yet having to hold them only to get screamed at or puked on.  We have other small jokes like Vaughn's brothers being wannabe wrestlers.  We get jokes dealing with showing pictures that all parents show to embarrass their kids.  Some of the humor is a darker, sexual related but it all gets minor laughs.  There's certainly nothing here that's going to make you fall on the ground laughing but if you enjoy cheap humor then you'll certainly want to check it out.  The cast has Vaughn leading the way giving his best Vaughn performance that only Vaughn could give.  Witherspoon once again proves to be better than the material at hand, which is something happening quite a bit.  Spacek and Voight doesn't get too much screentime but Duvall ends up with a pretty good role as the redneck dad.  Again, this isn't the greatest comedy in the world and I'm sure it'll soon be forgotten but if you have a Redbox near you then it's certainly worth a dollar.
 

Goods, The: Live Hard, Sell Hard (2009)
 

Neal Brennan
 

There are stupid movies released each and every week but they are accidentally stupid.  You know, they try to either act like they're something great or they act like they're trying to say something special but in reality, they're just downright stupid.  This film, on the other hand, wants to be stupid and it does that very well.  The minimum plot centers on a rundown car lot where no cars are being moved so the owner (James Brolin) gets desperate and calls in Don Ready (Jeremy Piven) and his group of talents to get people in and out in vehicles.  What happens next is our group of salesmen and one child-molesting woman set out to get all the cars sold.  That's pretty much the entire story as we see one sale after another and one vulgar scene after another.  If you don't mind outrageously stupid and vulgar situations then you might find yourself laughing some at this movie.  The movie has a lot of jokes flying around constantly and many fall flat on their faces but there are many that also work.  We get a lot of politically incorrect humor with a lot of it coming from a crazy vet who is constantly going off on gays, Japanese and many other groups, although he's usually too stupid to really know who he's trying to offend.  We got one of the extra girls who has a crash on a man-child, the owner's son who looks to be in his thirties yet he's only ten-years-old.  Also on hand are strippers, perverts and various other nuts.  The entire movie is rather insane so you're either going to have a good time or you're going to pull your eyes out.  I've always enjoyed Piven's type of humor and I think he fits the role here quite well and really delivers everything his character promises.  Ving Rhames has a nice supporting part and Brolin appears to be having fun playing a closet homosexual.  Will Ferrell has a brief cameo and also produced the movie. 
 

Reply
post #1484 of 1550
11/30/09 at 8:20am
Unlikely that I'll watch anything tonight, so I guess I'll go ahead with this...

November 2009 Recap:

22 new viewings (plus 15 shorts)
10 revisits

Best new discovery: Hausu
Worst new discovery: I Come With the Rain


Hausu was the clear highlight of the month.  Exploring Obayashi's other work was less fruitful, but did provide a few other gems. 
Reply
post #1485 of 1550
11/30/09 at 7:41pm
November Re-cap

Movies watched this month = 28

New movies watched this month = 23

Favourite movie this month = A Night to Remember

Notable new movies watched = Star Trek; Frost/Nixon; Uncle Silas

11/01 The Story of Louis Pasteur (1936)
11/01 A Night to Remember (1958)
11/03 Green Promise (1949)
11/05 Dragonwyck (1946) 
11/06 Kit Kittredge: An American Girl (2008) 
11/06 Orphan (2009)
11/07 Trigger Effect (1996)
11/07 Transformers 2 (2009) 
11/07 The Proposal (2009) 
11/08 Uncle Silas (1947) 
11/08 Magic in the Water (1995)
11/09 Walk All Over Me (2007) 
11/09 Race With the Devil (1975) 
11/10 The Others (2001) 
11/11 The Taking of Pelman 1 2 3 (2009)
11/13 2012 (2009) 
11/14 GI Joe: Rise of Cobra (2009) 
11/15 Syriana (2005) 
11/15 Twilight (2008) 
11/16 Passchendaele (2008) 
11/21 Contact (1997) 
11/21 Blood and Chocolate (2007) 
11/22 Prisoner (2009)
11/24 Star Trek (2009) 
11/24 Angels & Demons (2009) 
11/26 Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941)
11/27 Braveheart (1995) 
11/28 Frost/Nixon (2008)


Reply
post #1486 of 1550
12/1/09 at 3:29pm
November Update

Excellent viewing month as I caught up on a bunch of strong Criterion releases, a Kieslowski I didn't get to during my September binge, and another "should have seen it ages ago" Hollywood classic. Even my new release viewing brought several very fine movies, though there were a handful of duds as usual.


Movies Watched: 22

Best 1st Time Viewing: A Short Film About Love

Honorable Mentions: Mildred Pierce, Homicide, That Hamilton Woman, Away We go, Thirst, Gervaise, The Last Days of Disco


2009 Films (Based on NY/LA Release)

Away We Go (2009, Sam Mendes) (DVD Rent) - A-
Easy Virtue (2008, Stephan Elliot) (DVD Rent) - B-
The Girlfriend Experience (2009, Steven Soderbergh) (DVD Rent) - B+
The Legend of Jimmy the Greek (2009, Fritz Mitchell) (DVR ESPN) - B
Planet 51 (2009, Jorge Blanco, Javier Abad & Marcos Martinez) (Theater) - C-
Rudo y Cursi (2008, Carlos Cuaron) (DVD Rent) - C+
Sin Nombre (2009, Cary Fukunaga) (DVD Rent) - B
Sugar (2008, Anna Boden & Ryan Fleck) (DVD Rent) - B+

Thirst (2009, Chan-Wook Park) (DVD Rent) - B+
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009, Gavin Hood) (DVD Rent) - C
Whatever Works (2009, Woody Allen) (DVD Rent) - B


Pre-2008 Films Seen for the 1st Time


Downhill Racer (1969, Michael Ritchie) (DVD Rent) - B+
Gervaise (1956, Rene Clement) (DVD Rent) - B+
That Hamilton Woman (1941, Alexander Korda) (DVD Rent) - A-
Homicide (1991, David Mamet) (DVD Rent) - A-
Le Jour se Leve (1939, Marcel Carne) (DVD Rent) - B+

The Last Days of Disco (1998, Whit Stillman) (DVD Rent) - B+
A Little Princess (1995, Alfonso Cuaron) (DVD Rent) - B+
The Lower Depths (1936, Jean Renoir) (DVD Rent) - B
Mildred Pierce (1945, Michael Curtiz) (DVD Rent) - A-
A Short Film About Love (1988, Krzystzof Kieslowski) (DVD Rent) - A


Re-Watches

Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone (2001, Chris Columbus) (Blu-Ray Own) - B

Reply
post #1487 of 1550
12/1/09 at 11:09pm
Thread Starter 

I got home from work today and learned that Paul Naschy had died.  I didn't even know he was battling cancer but I'll probably end up watching at least one of his films sometime this weekend.  I wasn't the biggest fan in the world but there are a few I enjoy.  His films were known to "bomb" on the DVD market in some places but I wonder if now that he's gone more people will seek out his work.


WWII in HD: Darkness Falls (2009)
 

Frederic Lumiere
 

The first entry in the ten part series chronicles the Nazi sweep across Europe as Hitler destroys one country after another, the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. people's outrage and the eventual first battles in the Pacific.  On a personal level we hear the stories of a couple men.  One being Jack Werner, a Jewish man living in Austria when the Nazi party started to take over there.  He fled to America to become an actor but after that failed he decided to do his part to end the terror.  We also hear from Archie Sweeney, a farm boy from upper New York who ends up at Pearl Harbor and Northern Africa.  Charles Scheffel, who is sent to England and then Richard Tregaskis who ends up at Guadalcanal.  This first part does a masterful job at building up the suspense of Hitler's terror as it swept through Europe, which is a pretty amazing job considering everyone watching this series is probably going to know what happened anyways.  Considering how well known some of this stuff is, it's a minor miracle that we're able to be drawn into the stories as if we've never heard of them before.  The attack on Pearl Harbor will have you as angry as people were when it originally happened and the suspense of our troops being hit by snipers at Guadalcanal is also quite powerful.  The added bonus of this series is its promise to show footage that was shot in color as well as present footage that we've never seen before.  This stuff here is certainly worth the price of a full admission because there's some rather amazing stuff shown including various planes flying through the sky on fire, crashing into ships and various other battles being fought.  The brutish side of Hitler is shown in graphic detail including one extremely disturbing sequence where dozens of men are hung in open view so that no one would fire upon German soldiers again.
 

WWII in HD: Hard Way Back (2009)
 

Frederic Lumiere
 

Second film in the series picks up with Charles Scheffel leading his men in Northern Africa as they and British troops try to trap German soldiers.  We're also introduced to Michigan native June Wandrey as she joins a nursing group also sent to North Africa.  Back in the States Richard Tregaskis releases his book "Guadalcanal Diary", which becomes a best seller.  The end of this part sets us up for America's defense of Europe.  Once again we're treated with a true masterpiece of art as the documentary does a great job at telling a story many might be familiar with but it does so in such a fresh and original way that you'll find yourself going through these battles like it was your first time hearing about them.  The film contains some great suspense as the soldiers find themselves in great danger only to, somehow, manage to fight their way through towards a victory.  We're also shown some even more graphic material including various wounded soldiers.  We're shown various bodies piled up, heads blown off, countless other injuries and we also see the "lucky" people who are still alive but missing parts.  These scenes are certainly stomach turning as this isn't Hollywood and actors who are eventually going to stand up and walk away.  All of these scenes are in full color, which certainly helps many scenes, brings some to life and makes some all the more disturbing.  One of the most hauntingly beautiful scenes is shot from the cockpit of a bomber as we see an overhead view of various bombs being dropped and the view of the large explosions. 
 

WWII in HD: Bloody Resolve (2009)
 

Frederic Lumiere

Third film in the series once again comes to us in striking color, which makes some of the horrific scenes even more graphic.  This film tells the battles of a couple places but the main focus is on Tarawa, a small island where around 5,000 Japanese troops are held up.  This battled ended up costing around 1,500 U.S. troops and this didn't sit too well when it reached American shores.  Writer Richard Tregaskis is back on the front lines but this time he is critically wounded.  Towards the end of this episode forces are coming together to take back Italy.  Once again this episode really hits home and this series is starting to be one of the greatest ever produced for television.  The way the stories are told and the way the battles are explained are masterfully being done and even if you're heard the stories before, their telling here is going to grab you by the throat and not let you breathe for a split second.  The action here is certainly heart pounding and a lot of this has to do with some of the spectacular shots, which were apparently shot by Hollywood cameramen.  Some of the images are truly haunting including a few shots of rotting corpses floating in the waters off the island as well as other scenes where bodies are burned to a crisp after being struck by a bomb.  Some of the footage here is incredibly graphic but, as we're told, many soldiers fighting wanted people in the U.S. to see this footage so that they would see how war really was.  The film also briefly talks about the decision to release some of this bloody footage in the short WITH THE MARINES AT TARAWA, which ended up winning an Oscar after the President allowed it to be shown uncut.
 

WWII in HD: Battle Stations (2009)
 

Frederic Lumiere
 

The fourth film in the series is clearly a set up for the following episode but there's still plenty of great stuff here to enjoy.  We start off as various U.S. bombers enter Germany to wipe out factories where they are making weapons.  All of this is being done because the Allies are preparing to make their strongest siege and that's on D-Day, June 6, 1944.  As I said, this episode is really setting us up for everything that's going to follow but the most entertaining stuff here is hearing from the pilot who flew over Germany.  Hearing of what it was like doing the missions from the bitterly cold temperatures to the surprise attack they faced coming home, all of this is incredibly entertaining and really makes one wonder how anyone survived this mission.  The second portion of the film centers on the preparations going on to get everyone ready for D-Day.  This episode doesn't contain as much action but we still get some pretty good stuff.  We get to see some truly breathtaking shots of the bombs hitting Germany as well as the German plans coming back for their attack.  All of these sequences are full of nice suspense but you follow this with a rather shocking site of hundreds of Japanese men who blew themselves up so that they wouldn't have to surrender.  The size of this explosion is caught on camera and it's certainly going to have jaws hitting the floor.  Once again all the footage is in color and really makes you see some of this stuff in a different light.
 

WWII in HD: Day of Days (2009)
 

Matthew Ginsburg, Frederic Lumiere

Film number five in The History Channels amazing documentary series is without question the best and most haunting.  We start off with the invasion of Saipan, which had an amazing 127,000 American troops on the ground.  We also learn about the amazing battle over the Philippine Sea where over 370 Japanese planes were brought down with only a little over 30 American ones.  The final and most haunting segment focuses on Mapi Point where over a thousand Japanese civilians committed suicide by jumping off cliffs, slashing their children's throats and various other ways just so they wouldn't have to surrender.  This film is rather amazing as there are so many highs and an incredible low that ends the film.  The patriotic sense of the first half is certainly very high as it's rather amazing to see how well the American strategy was working in regards to Saipan and the various battles that would follow it.  Seeing the plan to wipe out the small islands off a Japan to make way for a future attack on Tokyo was extremely interesting to watch and again we get all the glorious footage in color.  There are some truly breath taking scenes including some fiery planes crashing into the ocean but what really caught my eye was the orange reflection in the clear blue water.  Some of the leftover stuff from the previous episode on D-Day seems to really get overlooked here as they skip talking too much about the actual battle and move forward to weeks after wards.  The final minutes take a look at the suicides and this here is without question some of the hardest footage I've seen and I'd almost recommend people not to watch this.  There are many graphic shots of the dead lying on the rocks below the cliff and many children as well.  Hearing the stories of parents killing their children was pretty hard to take and there's even one woman who drown herself while giving birth.  There's one woman whose jump is captured on film and the aftermath to all of this is quite hard to take.  Through all of this pain, there's actually a very heartwarming scene as well and that's one where the American soldiers are helping some Japanese civilians with one soldier holding a sick Japanese boys.  It's footage like this that makes one shake their head about the lies the Japanese government was telling their people to make them want to kill themselves and their children.

 

Reply
post #1488 of 1550
12/2/09 at 3:36am
November Recap

32 films seen, 24 for the first time

Best films seen for the first time (out of )

Mysterious Skin 1/2
Ascent, The 1/2
Firemen's Ball 1/2
Orphan 1/2
World Without Thieves
Reply
post #1489 of 1550
12/2/09 at 10:35am
"Rope" - 4.5 /10

Two intellectually warped young men strangle a colleague, just before holding a party for the dead man's family and friends, and hide the body in a chest in the middle of the room.
Also on the guest list is their old University Professor with a sharp eye and a sharp brain....


Famously an exercise in technicality where the illusion that (almost) all a film was shot in one long take was tried out on Joe Public.
But it never really works. 

Much of the 'Stage Play/One-Take' set-up serves no purpose either artistically or dramatically and often the hidden 'breaks' in this one-take illusion are glaringly and jarringly clumsy.
When Hitchcock's roaming camera first zooms in on a guy's back to hide the cut it works fine. But repeat it 2 or 3 times more and it becomes annoying and sticks out painfully, surely even for 40's audiences.
It seems Hitch was trying something for Joe Public who may have not seen the obvious, but any cineaste would.
And (although not the film's fault) time and technique has moved on and as such these trite little tricks simply don't fool a modern audience.
So, literally, all we are left with now are 4 or so pointless and clumsy zooms into a character's back.
This is made even more bizarre in the fact that, despite all this 'hiding' of the cuts, Hitchcock makes two other clear and open cuts during the film in two scenes (one cut to Stewart the other to the maid) which make you wonder why he wobbled into the backs of people's jackets to hide the others anyway!

The film also lacks that vital Homosexual aspect to make the storyline really take hold.
Hints (like when the maid says "they got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning") are dropped here and there that the two lead murderers (Farley Granger and John Dall, based on the real Leopold-Loeb murders) are indulging in one of those achingly pretentious romps through intellectual Homosexuality, but it's perhaps too subtle (must have been even more obscure for general Joe Public in 1948) and this is made worse by the fact that James Stewart, as their old university Professor, really should be Homosexual too and have this link with the killers.
But hey, it's James Stewart! 
You could not have picked a more cleaner cut, family friendly, populist actor (utterly wonderful though he was) for such a role. As such that Homosexual link, and thus perhaps even a University affair, with the killers is simply not there.
Edges are being crucially blunted.

Interestingly, according to the DVD interview with the writer, the actual seeing of the murder in the opening seconds, was a later addition by Hitchcock. 
The writer had it so we never see the murder so that we are never actually sure if there even has been a murder, let alone if a body is hidden in plain sight in the room. 
This would have changed the dynamic of the film massively, but it would have again added another layer to the plot and make for a bigger reveal at the end.
What you would have lost though, without this certainty, is the wonderful black humour and crucial sadistic games that are played (both visual and verbal) with the fact that there is indeed a body whose 'coffin' is being used to serve food from (to the corpse's Father no less) and that the sly remarks about the dead character being late are indeed in the worst of taste.
Things that keep the rest of the film actually interesting and entertaining even if a crucial edge of tension is lost because of it.

As far as acting goes everyone does well with John Dall really standing out. Granger though (whose career would gleefully slide down hill into astonishingly exploitative Euro shockers like "So Sweet, So Dead" and full-on gore violence like "The Prowler") seems to push it all too much. 
His character is simply too unwound and uncertain to have ever actually committed the murder. That his character is a coward as far as getting caught goes is just fine if it does not get highlighted too strongly, here though it is. He also often shows a really out of place moral repugnance to the crime...Self-serving cowardice yes, but morality from someone who planned and carried out a thrill-kill murder? it does not wash.

Stewart is as watchable as always, but he seems ot be strangley mugging for the camera during his early scenes. Sometimes literally so as there are at least two occasions where he nervously glancers at and off camera.

The screenplay also seems to want to have its cake and eat it. 
The shockingly explicit, uber-fascist and chillingly cold-blooded, intellectual reasoning used by the murderers for committing the crime, and for indeed not seeing it as a crime, are a kind of (only 3 years after the War) Nazi wet dream rhetoric which must have been quite strong and brutally realistic at, and for, that time.
And that such thoughts have been put into (the admittedly damaged already) minds of the killers by their Professor, played of course by Stewart, opens up some very dark and deep waters indeed.
And let us not beat around the bush here, Stewarts' views are indeed twisted and explicit and phrases along the lines of 'intellectuals and superiors have every right to commit murder' and that how 'they are the only ones really suitable to murder another 'inferior' are clear and precise. 
And this is James Stewart (WW2 hero as well as clean-cut actor) saying these things, and these things have indeed been the reasoning for an actual murder.
But then we have some shoe-horned in preaching from Stewart to clear his character of any true blame, when the film has him state that the killers have 'twisted' his words and that they took them to a level that was never meant to be (step right up the same excuse used today by any and all apologists for religious crimes).
And although Stewart does take the blame for expressing beliefs that he now sees could indeed have been twisted into this crime...the film simply ignores the basic fact that his teachings never needed any twisting at all, or that they were in any way obscure or open to any other interpretation (step right up again the same excuse used today by any and all apologists for religious crimes).
The screenplay makes Stewart explicit in his words, and thus explicit in his part on the murder, but then decides to change its mind. 
But this part never stands up and just seems to be there (although it may have been in the script/original play already) because James stewart could not be seen as that malignant a character.

We have some positives though. 
The famous 'outside in the city' set view from the apartment window is well done and is very clever as it literally goes from afternoon to night before our eyes as lights comes on and clouds move.
The support cast is great (nice work from, a rather old looking, Sir Cedric Hardwick as the victim's Father and Edith Evanson as the maid) and some of the interplay and especially the twisted humour is wonderful in that Hitchcock way with playing with the most macabre of events. 
The whole chest with a body in it set-up is expertly used by Hitchcock, though again I think for more as a black joke than for really effective dramatic reasons because we know the body will not be found yet, no matter how many sequences of the chest nearly getting opened we have.
The pace is okay (though slowed by the one-take deal) and some nice atmosphere is built up in the apartment set as well as all these (damn fine to adequate) actors play around with the macabre set-up.

But the film still comes off as Hitch using other people's money to play around in his cinematic sandpit, and with much of the essential dramatic edges honed-down there is only the black humour and macabre trickery left to truly entertain us.
 
 

Edited by 42nd Street Freak - 12/2/09 at 12:13pm
Reply
post #1490 of 1550
12/2/09 at 11:43am
November Recap

Movies seen: 26 (First timers: All of them!)
Average rating = 2.56/5
Median rating = 2.5/5

"Dear Zachary" blew me away, and the first 15 minutes of "Up" had my girlfriend in tears, but besides that there wasn't all the much remarkable for me this month (I suppose "Antichrist" stands out for the sheer insanity, or is that 'chaos').  Lots of acclaimed older movies had a hard time living up to their reputation for me this month ("La Dolce Vita" dragged on and on while "400 Blows" paled in comparison to the "The Class").  But I suppose nothing beats Harmony Korine for pure tedium presented under the artifice of hard-hitting realism.

ALL RATINGS OUT OF (FIVE) STARS

First time viewings in bold.

11/02- Race to Witch Mountain (2009)
11/05- The 400 Blows (Les Quatre Cents Coups) (1959)
11/06- Shrink (2009)
11/07- The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (2008)
11/07- Dog Soldiers (2002)
11/08- Miracle at St. Anna (2008)
11/09- The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)
11/09- Food, Inc. (2009)
11/10- Funny Games (2008)
11/11- Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
11/12- Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)
11/12- Antichrist (2009)
11/15- Up (2009)
11/15- The Brothers Bloom (2009)
11/16- Ghost Ship (2002)
11/17- Adoration (2009)
11/18- Trick 'r Treat (2009)
11/19- Pierrot le Fou (1965)
11/19- Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father (2008)
11/20- Gummo (1997) ZERO STARS
11/22- My Sister's Keeper (2009)
11/23- Terminator Salvation (2009)
11/24- The 13th Warrior (1999)
11/26- Humpday (2009)
11/30- La Dolce Vita (1960)
11/30- Brüno (2009)

Favorites (first timers): Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father, Up
Reply
post #1491 of 1550
12/2/09 at 2:39pm
12/01/09: STRIPES [Extended Version] (Ivan Reitman, 1981)
 
Having spent my childhood in the 1980s, I am somewhat partial to films from that era; with this in mind, I like to re-acquaint myself with popular titles of that vintage…or, conversely, catch up with ones I missed out on (for instance, I recently enjoyed that Thanksgiving ‘classic’ PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES [1987]) – even at this distance. This military comedy, then, falls in the latter category: unfortunately, it is not among the better comedies to have emerged during this time. As indicated, I watched the extended edition of the film which, at 123 minutes, is grossly overlong for this type of fare – even if the added footage (about 16 minutes’ worth) is not merely filler material. Also, it deals with a milieu which had been treaded all-too-frequently over the years – which makes the whole exercise somewhat predictable, tiresome and downright pointless! Besides, I have never warmed to Bill Murray’s arrogant, narcissistic and self-satisfied personality; the supporting cast includes other exponents of ’80s comedies – namely Harold Ramis (serving also as co-writer and who would re-unite with Murray and director Reitman for the GHOSTBUSTERS movies), John Candy and Judge Reinhold (from the POLICE ACADEMY series). Somewhat surprisingly, Warren Oates takes on the predictably tough role of the D.I. – who, naturally, engages in a battle-of-wills with the rebellious Murray and even has to contend with an incompetent superior of his own. Again, it comes as no surprise at all that Murray (and Ramis) become involved with a couple of girls (HALLOWEEN’s P.J. Soles and a pre-stardom Sean Young respectively). The last third of the film resolves itself into an elaborate action sequence as the two couples, who had decided to take a holiday in Germany driving a bullet-proof van armed with missiles (the army’s latest secret weapon), find themselves having to rescue the rest of their unit who had gone after them and have ended up incarcerated in Communist Czechoslovakia! Mind you, the film is watchable enough for what it is – even if one could hardly call it memorable or even hilarious – but the various elements do not really jell together.
 
 
12/01/09: NIGHT SHIFT (Ron Howard, 1982) 
 
Like STRIPES (1981; see review elsewhere), I was too young to catch this adult comedy – best-known today for being former actor Howard’s sophomore directorial effort and for providing Michael Keaton with a star-making role. To be honest, I am rather ambivalent towards Howard’s supposed talent as a film-maker: well-suited to light-hearted, life-affirming fare such as this, SPLASH (1984) and COCOON (1985), he has regrettably failed to convince when tackling more serious subjects. Anyway, this was certainly an auspicious beginning: an original, if not exactly credible, premise wherein two morgue attendants (mild-mannered Henry Winkler – Howard’s ex-buddy from his HAPPY DAYS TV series – and charismatic Keaton) decide to turn their literally inert shift into a booming call-girl business! Keaton’s uncontained exuberance here may have lead to his getting the title role in BEETLEJUICE (1988) but nonetheless comes across as essentially overstated; Winkler though, miles away from his iconic and ultra-confident Fonzie character, is wonderful and he is matched by Shelley Long (of CHEERS fame, hence another established TV performer trying to break into movies) as the call-girl abused by customers (after her pimp is flamboyantly ‘executed’) who seeks comfort in the arms of neighbor Winkler (himself engaged to a neurotic woman dominated by strict parents). For all the seediness on display (involving partying in morgues, courtroom exhibitionism and exclusive sex clubs), the film proves a generally agreeable and entertaining ride – faltering only on occasion due to overlength (106 minutes). Consequently, there are plentiful felicities throughout (not least an early rendition of the Burt Bacharach/Rod Stewart song “That’s What Friends Are For”) in the way of situations (notably a running-gag involving Winkler being chased by a hound let loose in the corridors of his apartment building) and dialogue (particularly when, ending up in prison and being accosted by a murder-happy cellmate, Winkler sarcastically thanks Keaton for having made possible his acquaintance with Peter Lorre’s son!). Joe Spinell has a small role towards the end as the slimy manager of the swank brothel to which Long relocates after her association with Winkler and Keaton is disrupted: the latter happens to work at the same joint as a towel-boy(!), while the former follows her there on summing up the courage to finally express his love. By the way, a pre-stardom Kevin Costner can be glimpsed during the party-in-the-morgue sequence!
 
 
12/01/09: THE MUPPETS’ WIZARD OF OZ (TV) [Extended Version] (Kirk R. Thatcher, 2005) 
 
One’s first reaction after reading this film’s cast list is: what is Quentin Tarantino doing in a Muppet movie?! Find the answer at the bottom of this review. This, then, follows on from the vastly superior MUPPETS CHRISTMAS CAROL (1992) and MUPPETS TREASURE ISLAND (1996) in adapting classic children’s stories to suit the popular Jim Henson creations. Its relegation to TV – where it was even shorn of some 20 minutes – suggests the enterprise’s intrinsic poverty: Kermit, Gonzo and Fuzzy are cramped inside the pre-ordained figures of Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion respectively (and the same goes for Rizzo as the leader of the Munchkins), while Miss Piggy is all over the place by playing all four Witches in L. Frank Baum’s tale! Toto the dog is here incarnated in the prawn character from The Muppet Show: though it seems a highly unlikely choice, his laidback personality and hip quips prove the film’s highlight in the long run. Dorothy, too, is a black wannabe entertainer (played by real-life ‘superstar singer’ Ashanti, with Queen Latifah as her aunt) – didn’t they know the tale had already received a Blaxploitation makeover with THE WIZ (1978)? In keeping with the overall blandness of the thing, the songs are no great shakes but tolerable enough in themselves. To get back to that ‘genius of modern American cinema’, Tarantino appears briefly as himself (he seems to have resigned himself to the fact that the only way he can give a convincing interpretation is by playing Tarantino!) – still riding high on the wave of his KILL BILL success, he enthusiastically ‘sells’ a producer his personal (and typically flashy) approach to the climactic showdown between Dorothy and The Wicked Witch Of The West.
 
 
12/02/09: THE UGLY DACHSHUND (Norman Tokar, 1966) 
 
Dean  Jones'  second  film for Walt Disney came via this minor but lively family   comedy  co-starring  another  Disney  regular,  the  late  Suzanne Pleshette (as his wife) – plus veteran comic Charlie Ruggles (appropriately cast  as  their  vet [sic]) and soon-to-be popular Asian actor Mako (as a cowardly caterer). Although  the plot sticks strictly to formula, dog lovers should be able to get a satisfactory amount of enjoyment out of this lightweight farce about a Great  Dane,  who  being  raised  with  a litter of dachshunds, creates all manner  of  chaos  when  he grows too large for their company and, besides, suffers  from  identity  crisis  at  the most inopportune moments (namely a competitive  dog  show). In fact, apart from the likable pair of leads, the film's trump card is the various slapstick sequences that involve the naïve but fiercely protective Great Dane chasing the amiably anarchic dachshunds around the house (especially during an all-important garden party). Apart from the Asian caterers, a regular victim of the Great Dane's harmless ferocity is an overzealous cop who, in the film's most amusing non-canine incident, gives Jones the mother of all tickets.
 
 
12/02/09: TANGANYIKA (Andre` De Toth, 1954) 
 
An   obscure   jungle   adventure   that,  while  efficiently  handled  and good-looking  enough  to sustain interest throughout its trim running time, is let-down  somewhat  by  a  cliche-ridden  script  and lack of memorable incident. A second team cast – Van Heflin, Ruth Roman, Howard Duff and Jeff Morrow – does its best to liven up things in this story that seems partially inspired  by  Joseph Conrad's "Heart Of Darkness" – long after Orson Welles first  abandoned  his  intention  to film it and even longer before Francis Coppola  made it his own in APOCALYPSE NOW (1979)! In fact, would-be lumber tycoon  Heflin  makes it his personal mission  to  rid the titular region of the nefarious  Morrow  who, taking it on the lam into the wild to beat a murder rap,  eventually  becomes the leader of a dreaded and bloodthirsty tribe of Africans  that, among other things, are interfering with the smooth running of  Heflin's operations.  Along the way, the latter saves the lives of Duff (who is concealing a secret), Roman and her little charges and, true to formula, after the initial period of resentment, gets to befriend the first, fall in love with the second and risk his life to save the third when they go running after their runaway mule in the wild animal-infested jungle! The highlight of the film is the ingeniously explosive climax that is typically well-staged by seasoned action director De Toth.  

Edited by Mario Gauci - 12/3/09 at 8:29am
Reply
post #1492 of 1550
12/2/09 at 9:59pm
Thread Starter 

Re: ROPE

It's always been a favorite of mine and I've always called it one of Hitchcock's most underrated.  It might not be a "bold classic" like some of his later films but I've always had a great time watching it.  I was lucky enough to see it in a packed theater a few years ago and it appeared everyone really ate it up.  I never really thought the hidden homosexuality hurt the movie any.  I'm sure a remake could touch it up a bit but I don't think this version actually needed it.  Those bits in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN always seem to be debated on both sides and I think some of the quotes in ROPE could be as well.  The "they woke up" line could be seen from both ways but I'd be curious to know what people thought when they first saw it.  The same with all the homosexual stuff in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.  Today people go into the movies knowing about it but I do wonder if those originally seeing it picked up on it at the time.

Re: STRIPES

I didn't care too much for this one when I first watched it but it has grown on me over the years.  I still think it's highly flawed and not nearly as funny as it should have been but it does have its charm.  I don't have much interest in this "extended" cut as I felt the original version ran on way too long.


WWII in HD: Point of No Return (2009)
 

Matthew Ginsburg
 

After the extremely graphic and masterfully done previous episode, I was expecting some form of fall back but that really doesn't happen as the battles really start to pick up and the U.S. and Allies find themselves in even more danger.  This episode takes a look at the Battle of Peleliu as well as the Allies attempt to break into Germany.  The aftermath of Peleliu is explained pretty simply as 10,000 American solders are dead or wounded.  That number alone is rather amazing as is this entry in the series, which once again features some brilliant color sequences as well as some more very graphic images of dead, mutilated bodies.  We learn that the Japanese death toll was even higher during this matter where they actually outnumbered the Americans, which wasn't the norm for them.  The film also takes a look at the extreme heat (115 degrees) and the dehydration they were facing as their water ended up getting tainted with gasoline somehow.  The scenes of the men on this island were pretty harrowing as they were facing great odds because the Japanese had planned that their best defense was to kill as many soldiers as they could.  The entering Germany moments weren't detailed as much in this episode, although I'm sure that's going to change in future entries.  Soldier Charles Scheffel makes what I believe is his final appearance here as he talks about his final battle and the aftermath of his soul leaving his body.  A pretty powerful story and conclusion of events.
 

WWII in HD: Striking Distance (2009)
 

Matthew Ginsburg
 

Whereas the first six episodes featured quite a bit of graphic footage of dead soldiers, this one here doesn't feature a drop of blood yet it's one of the most haunting and suspenseful in the series.  This time out we take a look at three different soldiers and their heroic stories.  First we have Shelby Westbrook, member of the Tuskegee Airmen, who gets shot down behind enemy lines.  Jack Yusen finds himself outnumbered on a ship battle when his ship is struck and sinks where the survivors are soon being stalked by sharks.  Jimmy Kanaya, a Japanese-American, finds himself a POW after being part of one of the bravest fights in military history.  All three of these stories are rather amazing survival stories and it really makes one respect what these men went through and even question how anyone could have the spirit to make it through these events.  I think this film could also make any hard boiled racist change his ways after hearing how bravely Westbrook and Kanaya fought only to be hit with racism when they returned to the States.  Westbrook, who flew nearly sixty missions, was turned down on a great job when he returned home because the CEO of that company didn't want blacks.  It's also worth noting how the U.S. must have thought of their black and Japanese men because their footage, unless the rest that was shot of white soldiers, is in B&W.  It really makes one wonder what was going on in this country when these men returned home.  The color footage is (again) quite remarkable especially some of the footage of actual battles with ships being struck by large bombs and the various battles in the sky.  The suspense to these three stories are top notch and makes this one of the best entries.
 

WWII in HD: Glory and Guts (2009)
 

Matthew Ginsburg
 

The eighth film in the series focuses in on the battle at Iwo Jima where the death numbers are quite mind blowing.  Overly 24,000 American soldiers are killed or wounded with only one-thousand of 23,000 soldiers making it off the island.  Also told here is the story of a soldier whose first action in battle finds himself separated from his troops and he comes across a German soldier and must slice his throat.  The way this story is told and all the details are very haunting and the way this soldier tells the story is pretty unbelievable as you can tell he's still haunted by the events.  This episode is one again a masterpiece and it's rather amazing at how much impact these stories have even though this entire battle is pretty well known thanks to countless movies including Clint Eastwood's FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA.  The flag raising at Iwo Jima is talked about in detail here including the three survivors trip and tour across America, which ended up earning more money for war bonds than any other tour.  Once again we're shown several graphic scenes with dead soldiers being buried together and other scene of men being blown apart.  The story of a man's arms and legs being found fifty-feet away from his body is quite shocking as are other stories about parts being at places you wouldn't expect. 
 

WWII in HD: Edge of the Abyss (2009)
 

Matthew Ginsburg
 

Ninth and next to last entry in the wonderful series from The History Channel spends most of its time focused on Okinawa as well as the Battle of the Bulge.  We learn that the Okinawa battle was considered by many to be the biggest in the war as it featured over 180,000 troops and more than 1,000 ships.  We also learn how the Japanese soldiers went full force in their suicide beliefs by crashing their planes into the American ships.  Some of the color footage of this happening is quite remarkable and that's especially true for one of the first shots where the plane flies above the camera by what appears to be a couple dozen yards.  The scenes of them crashing into the ocean with certainly have your jaw on the floor as will the scenes with the ships on fire from the massive attacks.  The stories at Ardens are equally remarkable as one of the soldiers talks about how he fell asleep and when he woke up he was frozen solid to the ground.  There are even more interesting stories about the civilians of Okinawa who were tortured and mutilated by the Japanese and how they gladly turned themselves over to American troops.  The final segments deal with the passing of F.D.R. as the battles appear to be nearing their end. 
 

WWII in HD: End Game (2009)
 

Matthew Ginsburg

The final episode in this ten part series is without question the most emotional as the war begins to wind down, the Japanese refuse to surrender and the atomic bombs are dropped.  This episode is a real heart jerker as we see the final results of this war, which is given an estimated 70-million people who were killed.  This episode also shines a light on the concentration camps with some incredibly horrific footage of various humans who were tortured, burned and killed in various forms.  The thought of any single person ordering stuff like this is just mind boggling as is the footage of various other civilians who were tortured and killed just because of their race.  We also get some of the final footage of Hitler before his suicide as well as some never-before-seen footage of MacArthur and others walking into the ship where Japan would eventually sign their surrender.  The final few minutes of the documentary are downright devastating as the soldiers give their thoughts on the war and seeing the effects on them all these years later was just heartbreaking.  Also heartbreaking is the amount of people who were killed and what it meant to the world that they gave their lives for this cause.  Having gone through all ten episodes of this marvelous documentary, I've certainly learned to appreciate what the "greatest generation" did and it's rather amazing to see what all happened and how it happened.  This documentary is extremely long but there's not a weak second in the entire series.  Without question this is one of the greatest documentaries out there.

 

Reply
post #1493 of 1550
12/3/09 at 8:44am
I've always enjoyed Rope as simply a compelling slow burn.  The camera gimmick is easily ignored, but I agree that Granger isn't very good in it.  It disagree with your criticisms of the film's handling of homosexuality.  I like how it's pretty much left up to the viewer to decide.  Remember, this is only inspired by Leopold & Loeb, it's not a docudrama about them.

You might enjoy Compulsion, also based on L&L.  It's closer to the true story and goes more into the psychology and the details.
Reply
post #1494 of 1550
12/3/09 at 4:46pm
Stripes was my formative "boobie movie." The first time the lucious secrets of womandom were revealed to me. I think I wore out my friend's VHS tape (He had a VCR 2-3 years before we got one) I watched it so much. All the key scenes are permanently burned in my mind - Murray's girlfriend coming out of the bedroom, the glorious shower scene, and John Candy's mud wrestling scene. I find it to be a pretty good comedy too. Probably has more laughs to me than similar vintage comedies like Animal House or Caddyshack. They should have stopped the movie after the graduation scene though. All the action movie stuff is craptacular.

Gotta agree with Martin and Michael on Rope, delicious black comedy and suspense as only Hitchcock could deliver it. I think it's the best of the 3 for lack of a better word "gimmick" films (Rope, Lifeboat, and The Trouble with Harry), though he made better films before and after of course.

For me the attraction of Abrams' Star Trek was seeing these iconic characters I grew up with re-imagined in an intelligent and believable manner instead of goofy or sacriligeous which is how it could have easily turned out. There's a nostalgic pleasure that comes from seeing historical elements important to the character's background (the Kobyashi Maru scene, Kirk and McCoy meeting, etc) that we had only heard talked about previously. But for someone who isn't invested in the characters, I can see the story coming off as just another action movie.

I can't wait to see Antichrist, well, actually I guess I could since I didn't make an effort to see it when it was in a theater here, but I plan on renting it ASAP anyway.
Reply
post #1495 of 1550
12/4/09 at 8:38pm
Thread Starter 

Still playing catch up for a few titles from November:


Courtship of Andy Hardy, The (1942)
 

George B. Seitz
 

The twelfth entry in the series finds Andy Hardy (Mickey Rooney) in all sorts of trouble.  For starters, he decides to open his own towing company but after a freak accident he's accused of stealing the man's car, which gets him a date in court.  He's also got two or three different women he wants but Judge (Lewis Stone) asks him to take a less popular girl (Donna Reed) to a dance so that she can try and forget her parents rocky divorce.  Also troubling the Hardy's the the sisters desire to wear more liberal clothing.  I had heard mixed things about this entry but for the most part I found it to be entertaining even if it didn't have as many laughs as previous entries that I've seen.  I think, for the most part, the film is a straight drama as there are some pretty dark elements scattered throughout.  Not only to we have the ugly divorce harming a child but we even have a drunk scene where Judge gets to tell everything a moral story about it.  The majority of the film is centered around the "ugly girl turned pretty" storyline, which doesn't really work here too well as Donna Reed looked good in both forms of her character.  They really didn't try to ugly her up very much so it's hard to really understand why no one wanted her already.  The performances are all what you'd expect with Rooney being as jumpy and lively as ever and Stone coming through with that stern but fair approach.  Reed makes quite an impression in her early appearance. 

Greaser's Palace (1972)
 

Robert Downey, Sr.
 

I know that there are people out there who really, really enjoy this movie as its cult following appears to get bigger and bigger each year but I can't say I'm one of them.  After hearing so many things about this film I had to try it for myself but I never really got drawn into the movie so for the most part it left me bored.  The film is pretty much a stoner's (or alternative) look at the life of Jesus Christ but set in the Old West.  A zoot suit wearing man is going through a small town where he heals the sick and brings the dead back to life.  This doesn't sit too well with the town bad guy.  That's pretty much the only bit of "plot" that I could pick up because this movie certainly succeeds at being strange and surreal.  I think the likes of someone like Bunuel would even have a hard time following everything that goes on in this thing.  The humor isn't in your face funny but more often than not it's just laid back and really comes off without having to use any punchlines.  Something, or almost anything, will happen and you either laugh or you don't.  The film really doesn't push too hard for laughs so I think it's really going to depend on whether or not the viewer can really get into the film from the start.  I was unable to so that certainly explains why I wasn't really going along with the thing.  I certainly respect the attempt but it just wasn't my cup of tea.  Look quick for Robert Downey, Jr. playing a molested boy.

Bruce Lee: His Final Days (1976)
 

Mar Lo
 

This Shaw Brothers production has become quite controversial over the years because no one, other than Bruce Lee and Betty Ting Pei, really know if it's true or not.  There have been many conspiracy theories to what really killed the martial arts superstar but many put the blame on Pei who plays herself in this bio pic that tells about her relationship with Lee (Danny Lee).  I can't say I'm a Lee expert so I really don't know too much about his personal life but hopefully it was a lot more exciting than this film.  The version I watched was the English dub, which was also P&S so I'm not sure if the original version would be better but I seriously doubt it.  What we have here is a pretty weak little film that doesn't manage to do anything except bore the viewer.  We have several martial arts scenes but the majority of them are badly staged and come off rather funny.  Danny Lee gives a pretty performance as Lee, although the screenplay really doesn't give him a lot to do.  For the most part he plays Lee as a practical joker and I think these scenes come off as the most interesting in the film.  Danny Lee is able to bring out this comic side of the legend but how much of this side is true is something I don't know.  His fighting scenes are rather boring but again, this has more to do with the way they are staged.  Pei on the other hand isn't very good playing herself.  I'm really not sure what it was but she came off pretty fake from start to finish as if she was really wanting to show herself in a certain way and didn't want to steer off of that.  I'm not sure if that's fair to say but that's the way she came off.  The film runs just under 90-minutes but there are very few interesting marks.  I'm really not sure what the point of the film was as the film never knows how to look at Pei, her relationship with Lee or even say much about the legend himself.  In the end it comes off as something incredibly boring, which makes it rather worthless when there are better documentaries, bio pics and Lee's own movies out there.

Doctor Faustus (1967)
 

Richard Burton, Nevill Coghill
 

Handsome, if someone shallow adaptation of the Christopher Marlowe play has Richard Burton (who also directed) playing Doctor Faustus, the man who sells his soul to Satan in order to have more knowledge but soon he lives to regret this.  Burton also co-produced this thing and you have to admire the work that went into the film even though the end results aren't as great as I'm sure he wanted.  The decision to hire an unknown supporting cast from the Oxford Dramatic Society doesn't really pay off but at the same time I don't think it kills the movie as bad as some have made out.  I'm sure a more recognizable supporting cast would have helped matters but the films biggest flaw isn't here.  I think the biggest problem with the production is Burton the actor.  I'm really not sure what it was but I never really bought him in the role.  He might have looked it but he was never really able to captivate me and draw me into the film.  I wouldn't say he gave a bad performance but at the same time I didn't find it strong enough to carry everything.  Elizabeth Taylor plays his object of desire and for the most part delivers a nice performance.  She doesn't have a single line of dialogue but her character is here for lust and she's certainly very lustful in her near-nude scenes.  I did find the pacing somewhat all over the place but I'd still recommend this movie just for its wild, claustrophobic and at times mad visual style.  There's no question that the two directors were working overtimes in terms of the look of the film because the lighting, set design and overall feel of the film is quite memorable.  The film has a very foreign feel to it, which I'm sure was done on purpose to give the film even more of a style, which is okay considering how well it looks.  In the end, this is a decent stab at the play but one wishes there had been a little more substance to go along with the style.
 

Witness for the Prosecution (1982)
 

Alan Gibson

Hallmark Hall of Fame remake of the 1957 Billy Wilder masterpiece taken from the Agatha Christie play.  This time out it's Ralph Richardson playing the lawyer trying to get a man (Beau Bridges) off of murder charges and the key bit of evidence might come from his mysterious wife (Diana Rigg).  Wilder's original version takes a rather unbelievable story and turned it into a masterpiece because everyone from the director to the wonderful cast took the material, ran with it and make the subject a lot better than it actually was.  This remake does a somewhat decent job at certain aspect but in the end it really can't stand against the original version or on its own.  The biggest problem with the film is the performance by Bridges, which is downright terrible.  He's so over the the top and obnoxious that I really wanted to see him hang and this isn't good when we're suppose to be cheering for him to be freed.  I found his performance so irritating that it really hurt the film for me and I really didn't expect to feel this way as I've enjoyed several of his performances over the years.  Why director Gibson let him turn in a performance like this is beyond me.  Richardson turns in a decent performance, although I do feel he was a tad bit too laid back for the character.  While he's good in the role he never really takes it and makes it jump off the screen.  Rigg is pretty good, although she too goes over the top too much in certain scenes.  Donald Pleasence turns in a good performance as the prosecuting attorney and Deborah Kerr is quite charming as Richardson's nurse.  Michael Gough gets a few good scenes as the judge.  This version is pretty much by the numbers and is slightly entertaining but it's a shame there wasn't more fire and energy like the original.  If you've seen the original the you might want to check this one out for comparison sake but if you haven't seen that Wilder film then you'll want to stay away from this and check it out.

High Spots of the Far East (1932)
 

Fair entry in the early "World Adventures" series from Vitaphone is probably going to be unfairly judge (by myself included) as James A. FitzPatrick would turn out the same thing in future years in much better quality.  Those TravelTalks shorts would also benefit from their Technicolor, which of course is missing here.  The short takes us to various places in the Far East including various palaces in Siam, the Temple of 500 Buddhas in Japan and a visit to the Pearl River in China.  The film might lack the Technicolor but the B&W cinematography is one of the real high points as the visual look of the film is quite nice.  All of the places we visit actually look very good in their B&W but a few of the places, like Siam, were later visited by FitzPatrick and his crew.  What doesn't work is the narration and some of the stuff we're told.  We're given very little information on the places we visit and what we are told is often times laughable.  For example, when we visit China we're told that what we're looking at is as "Chinese" as China can get.  Oh, really?  If you have eight-minutes to kill then this isn't too bad but this travelogue genre would get much better in future years.

Red Shadow, The (1932)
 

Roy Mack
 

Abbreviated version of "The Desert Song" from Warner and their Vitaphone productions.  The film has Pierre being sent to the French Morocco so that he can toughen up.  He's there to fight the Arab insurgents but he soon takes on the identity of "The Red Shadow".  The opera by Hammerstein and Romberg had been filmed by Warner as a full length movie in 1929 so I'm not sure why they needed to rush another version out there but this here isn't too bad.  I haven't seen the original to compare this to but the music here is quite nice and the production values appear to be rather high for a two-reeler.  Alexander Gray plays The Red Shadow and has a pretty good voice, although it's certainly not the strongest I've heard.  Bernice Clare is his love interests and I found her voice and acting abilities rather weak here. 

Girl's Best Years, A (1937)
 

Reginald Le Borg
 

Decent MGM Musical about a songwriter (John Warburton) who is constantly getting slapped with breach-of-promise suits because he can't keep his heart away from various women.  He hires a reporter (Mary Doan) to keep him out of trouble but it doesn't take too long for him to fall for her.  If you are constantly watching Turner Classic Movies then you know these type of shorts are shown weekly.  Some of better than others and this one here isn't overly special so this here isn't one that you'd need to put at the top of your must see list.  The film only contains two musical numbers and neither one is all that impressive.  They were apparently co-written by Will Jason who would eventually start directing his own shorts for MGM.  The entire screenplay pretty much works off the one joke that this guy can't stay away from women to fall in love with so you needlessly know where the film is going and how it's going to end.  Doan is pretty good in her role as is Warburton but both fair a lot better apart from one another than when they're together.

Little Jack Little & Orchestra (1936)
 

Warner Vitaphone short has the typical weak story built around some decent music.  Johnny Little and his orchestra play sailors who end up falling for a lady who might not want a thing to do with him.  Of course, this is when Johnny and his band go to work.  These Warner shorts always featured a low budget but I think this one here has the lowest that I've seen.  I really wasn't impressed with anything here and that includes the performances, production values and even the music didn't really knock me off my feet.  I had never heard of Johnny Little before watching this and my overall impression wasn't really that high.  I enjoyed some of the stuff on the piano but I thought the highlight of the film was "If I Could Be With You", which was performed by Mildred Fenton.  Those who have some time to kill won't lose anything by checking this out but there are much better shorts than this one on TCM each and every week.
 

Madeira: 'Isle of Romance' (1938)
 

Early TravelTalks entry has James A. FitzPatrick taking his cameras to the small island of Madeira where we learn about its history, which includes Christopher Columbus and his great love.  We also take a look at the small forms of business, which consists of women sewing and men working a "buggy" where they slide people down the bobble stone roads.  The really bad job happens when the men must carry the items back up the hill.  Hopefully they were paid very well.  Quite often the Technicolor steals the film and that's the case here as the beautiful blue ocean water and skies really jump off the screen here and these images are well worth the nine-minutes it'll take you to watch this short.  The stories about the island are mildly entertaining but the real key are all the visuals.  One of my favorites was the bushes, which were quite colorful and also jumped off the screen.
 

Swing Cat's Jamboree (1938)
 

Roy Mack

Louis Prima, one of the all time greats, gets the lead in this Warner Vitaphone short.  We see Louis and his band performing a number of songs including  "You're An Education In Yourself", "I Can't Give You Anything But Love" and "Loch Lomand".  All three songs have Prima performing at the top of his game and turning in fine numbers of these songs (which would go through changes themselves over the years).  The highlight for me would be "I Can't Give You Anything But Love" as it features Shirley Lloyd doing her thing and really delivering a firehouse performance.  All three music numbers don't feature the highest production values but that really doesn't hurt anything here as they visually have a minor charm to them. 
 

Polar Outpost (1957)
 

Surprisingly entertaining look at the Dew (Distant Early Warning) System, which was one of the many programs made by the U.S. during the Cold War to throw off any possible surprise attacks by Russia.  I was really shocked at how entertaining this thing was as there have been quite a few shorts from RKO-Pathe that had interesting ideas but the execution was a letdown.  That's not the case here because this two-reeler really has some terrific images and a pretty interesting story as well.  Instead of showing us the technical stuff behind the system, we instead get to see what all it took to put it in place.  We see the arctic being ripped apart so that airplanes could land.  We see the shores having rocks removed or blown out of the water so that ships could come in.  We see the houses built, the chefs brought in to cook and various other items like this to make life possible for those brought in to protect the country.  All of this makes for some great entertainment and makes this worth spending fifteen-minutes on. 
 

Swingtime in the Movies (1938)
 

Crane Wilbur
 

A "behind the scenes" short from Warner has a musical director (Fritz Feld) being disappointed in his leading lady who can't quite get her Southern accent down.  He eventually finds a lady (Kathryn Kane) working in the cafeteria who is from Texas and is just right for the part.  The "story" side of this film is mildly entertaining but the real reason to watch is for an early sequence inside the Warner cafeteria where some of their biggest stars are show.  We get to see Pat O'Brien, George Brent, John Garfield, Prescilla and Rosemary Lane and a funny sequence with Humphrey Bogart keeping the "Dead End Kids" in line.  It's worth noting that this short was also Garfield's only Technicolor film so that's reason enough alone to check it out.  These stars are the main reason to see this film but there are plenty of other good moments and that includes the music numbers.  The big production inside the cafeteria is certainly the best one but all of them are worth listening to.  Kane herself makes for a nice leading lady and really delivers a fun performance making her character quite likeable and memorable. 
 

Reply
post #1496 of 1550
12/5/09 at 12:01am
Van Gogh - An account of the last two months of Van Gogh's life. I love his work, but I don't know much about the man. I'm sure most of this film is fictionalized, but I found it didn't matter to me. It steers clear of all the usual biopic trappings, and thankfully isn't another portrait of an artist as a deranged lunatic. There are some histrionics, and these tend to be the weakest moments of the movie, but fortunately it only happens a couple of times. Instead, Pialat manages to capture the complexity of his character in light, subtle strokes. The word that kept coming to mind was "naturalistic": the pacing, mood, scenarios, lighting and performances. Jacques Dutronc is superb in the lead, and the rest of the cast is splendid as well. Everything just seemed flow naturally, without blatantly steering the narrative towards its foregone conclusion. I really enjoyed it. Between this and L'Enfance Nue, Pialat has made up for the dismal A Nos Amours. Rating: 8


The Woman in the Window - Crime drama (not truly a noir, but there are elements) about a professor who gets mixed up in an accidental murder. Lang's American films are not as cinematically compelling as his earlier work, but it's a tense nail-biter as you wonder what will be Edward G. Robinson's undoing. There's some Raskolnikov moments as he discusses the case with his pal, the district attorney. The conclusion seems at first glance to be a major cop-out, but it's actually pretty clever. Lang manages to get an ending, albeit a "false" one, that would have been forbidden under the Hayes Code. The final seconds of the film, however, involve a rather hokey bit of comedy. Rating: 8


All These Women (rewatch) - This is the one I've been dreading. High Tension is a terrible movie, but at least its ineptitudes are amusing. But an inept comedy is simply painful. Bergman tries to skewer his critics, but I imagine they had the last laugh. Not that there many laughs to be had in the film. Most of the potentially witty scenarios are undermined by some broad stroke. There are a few clever ideas, and during this very experimental stage in his career it's only natural that he would go way, way out on a limb like this, but any good intentions are buried by the absolute humorlessness (and, dare I say, pretention) of it. The one saving grace is Nykvist's glorious photography for Bergman's first color film: bright and colorful and luminous, and the fireworks routine is a minor masterpiece in cinematography. But it's still just lipstick on a pig. I've told myself that I would buy any Bergman movie that comes out in this country on DVD, and for the sake of completion I stick to that. I just hope that if this one ever gets released, it's packaged with something -- anything -- else. Rating: 2
Reply
post #1497 of 1550
12/7/09 at 10:02am
12/03/09: THE MAGIC CARPET (Lew Landers, 1951)

Arabian Nights romps are popular around the house especially during this time of year for their exotic flavor, fantasy elements, action outbursts and general mindlessness. This film is best-known, if at all, for the presence of Lucille Ball; interestingly, she does not play the heroine but rather a sultry semi-villainess (the ambitious sister of the current Caliph, naturally a usurper). Equally predictably, the true heir to the throne (blandly played by John Agar) has survived an attack upon his life as an infant and, unaware of his heritage, has taken to living a life of poverty as a physician. The heroine, then, is a feisty (but who effortlessly works her feminine charms when the need arises) Patricia Medina – a regular in this type of film – who not only gets off with Agar on the wrong foot (by wanting to join the all-male band of rebels he secretly and all-too-suddenly finds himself leading under the guise of “The Scarlet Falcon”!), resents Ball (obviously over her attentions to Agar, eventually in the Caliph’s employ when he cures a case of hiccups he had brought about in the first place) but has a brother of her own (Agar’s sidekick and the film’s obligatory supplier of comedy relief, George Tobias). As for the chief villain, we get no less than Raymond Burr: needless to say, he craves Ball’s favors but she only has eyes for the dashing hero. The titular fabric comes in handy many a time during the course of the film, usually to allow Agar to make a nick-of-time escape or to meet up with his rabble and give them the low-down on the Caliph’s movements so that they can finally storm the palace, rid the country of a tyrant and put Agar himself in his rightful place. As can be expected, the film is instantly forgettable and hardly great cinema but certainly makes for colorful fare and fun viewing to boot i.e. it provides perfect relaxation after a hard day at work.
 
12/03/09: ISLE OF FORGOTTEN SINS (Edgar G. Ulmer, 1943)
While I would not consider director Ulmer’s cult reputation as overrated, I cannot deny having been disappointed by some of his work which is generally deemed as above-average; one such title is THE STRANGE WOMAN (1946) and another would be the film under review. Tropic-island adventures are usually good-looking, action-packed and spectacular – but this is (typically for Ulmer) a low-budget and studio-bound production which resorts to repetitive, if highly energetic, fisticuffs for excitement...while the climactic monsoon (the film was re-issued under that name, by the way, borne also by the copy I watched) is dealt with so quickly one could be excused for taking it as an afterthought had it not been anticipated in the dialogue! Though the casting of the principals looks promising on paper, it is rendered futile by miscasting (John Carradine as a lusty man of action!) and undernourished or otherwise clichéd characterization (Gale Sondergaard and Sidney Toler respectively)! This is not to say that the film is not agreeable to watch throughout its terse 82-minute duration as an example of an efficient potboiler from this era. Interestingly, the South Sea saloon setting, deep sea-diving backdrop and rivalry over sunken treasure recalls or looks forward to three fine John Wayne vehicles i.e. SEVEN SINNERS (1940), REAP THE WILD WIND (1942) and WAKE OF THE RED WITCH (1948) respectively – comparisons to which do not really do favors to Ulmer’s much more modest effort...  
 
12/04/09: THE VIRGIN QUEEN (Henry Koster, 1955)
16 years after portraying Queen Elizabeth I in Michael Curtiz’s THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX (1939), Bette Davis donned the garments of the fiery British monarch once more for this fine (if largely unhistorical) costumer about another tumultuous relationship of hers – with Sir Walter Raleigh (here played by the late Richard Todd, who died just the other day aged 90). Although Davis unsurprisingly dwarfs the rest of the participants in the acting stakes, she is still surrounded by a most able cast that also includes Joan Collins (as one of Elizabeth’s ladies-in-waiting who, much to the latter’s chagrin, becomes Mrs. Walter Raleigh and is carrying his child), Herbert Marshall (as the long-suffering Chancellor of England), Robert Douglas (as Elizabeth’s villainous chief advisor), Dan O’Herlihy (as, controversially, an Irish lord and Raleigh’s best friend) and Jay Robinson (as Douglas’ reptilian henchman). There are some good lines (especially when Davis and Todd indulge in verbal sparring), two good fight sequences both involving Todd (a vigorous swordfight in a tavern at the start and an animated fistfight with Douglas towards the end), a serviceable score from Franz Waxman and, as is to be expected from a Grade-A studio product, the film is very handsome to behold (the costume designers nabbed its sole Oscar nod).   
 
12/04/09: CRAZY HOUSE (Edward F. Cline, 1943)
 
This is the third Olsen & Johnson vehicle I have watched; in a way, it is a direct follow-up to their most notable outing i.e. HELLZAPOPPIN’ (1941) since the latter is mentioned a number of times throughout. Like that film, this one has only a wisp of plot: turned down by Universal after their zany antics in the earlier title, the duo here try to finance their own movie – helped by producer wannabe Patric Knowles and Percy (Pa Kettle) Kilbride as a man suffering from delusions of being a millionaire! The rest is taken up by typically surreal gags (funny while they are on but not exactly memorable, except for the opening which sees the entire studio personnel bolting at the comics’ arrival at the studio gates…including Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce in character as Holmes and Watson, then appearing in a series of films for Universal!) and numerous specialty – and boring – musical numbers (the most irritating of which being that of Cass Daley who not only shouts her lyrics but even plays dual roles!). In pure Hollywood terms, Knowles discovers – and falls for – a female singing ‘sensation’; also, when the film is finally completed and the backers see no remuneration coming their way, they decide to sabotage the premiere…only that, when most of the reels go ‘missing’, Olsen & Johnson have the brilliant idea of enacting the situations live (since most of it is revue-style material anyway)! For the record, director Cline was a comedy expert and, while producer Erle C. Kenton directing films in this genre himself, is perhaps best-known for his horror output at Universal itself and other studios.
 
 
12/05/09: ROB ROY, THE HIGHLAND ROGUE (Harold French, 1954)
 
Walt Disney’s follow-up to THE STORY OF ROBIN HOOD AND HIS MERRIE MEN (1952) is this similar epic about another legendary outlaw (emanating from Scotland this time around). He is once again played by Irishman Richard Todd (who has just passed away at the venerable age of 90) and the film even re-unites the actor with his three co-stars from yet another period outing from the Disney Studios, THE SWORD AND THE ROSE (1953), namely Glynis Johns, James Robertson Justice and Michael Gough. For some reason, the film is fairly maligned (awarded a measly *1/2 by the “Leonard Maltin Film Guide”!) but I rather enjoyed it, while readily admitting to be the least of Disney’s three colourful adventures derived from the pages of English history. In traditional Disney fashion, the familiar events were simplified (though by no means rendered juvenile, as would often prove the case later) but there is enough sprawling action and engrossing drama – to say nothing of the beautiful scenery captured in gleaming Technicolor – to please most audiences. Similarly, characterization for this type of larger-than-life fare is pretty much standard but, given careful casting all round, it emerges as forceful rather than clichéd; besides, at a terse 81 minutes, the film has little chance of outstaying its welcome. Incidentally, I had found the flabby, oddly uninvolving and ill-cast 1995 remake (which had garnered critical praise and at least one top Oscar nod back in the day) a major disappointment on my sole viewing so far!
Reply
post #1498 of 1550
12/7/09 at 8:50pm
Thread Starter 

Mario, I'd go a step further and call Ulmer overrated.  I'm really not sure where his great rep came from, how it came to be or anything else but I've spent a good number of days going through some of his films and I've found many to be rather dull.  From your own list, I'd say Lew Landers is a lot more entertaining in the "B" genre.  Of course, I'd also say Landers THE RAVEN is a lot better than Ulmer's Universal from the same period in THE BLACK CAT.  I've seen a lot of their "other" films and try to catch each one that gets shown and so far my money is on Landers.

Decided to spend a day with some Pixar stuff, which I'm glad I did.  I remember seeing TOY STORY when it was first released and loving it but I really haven't revisited the studio since then.  I caught up with WALL-E last year but after seeing UP I think I'm going to check out more of their previous films. 


Up (2009)
 

Pete Docter, Bob Peterson
 

A marvelous achievement ranks as one of the greatest animated movies ever made.  The story is pretty simple as an elderly man, after the death of his beloved wife, decides to finally explore South America as the two had always planned.  He ties millions of balloon onto his house and takes flight when he notices a young cub scout is along for the ride.  Once they hit the jungles the two will discover what's really important in life as they have one battle after another.  Even though I had heard this was a great film, I was really shocked to see just how great it actually was.  I was a little skeptical after being somewhat letdown by WALL-E, a film I liked but one I didn't feel lived up to the hype.  Everything in this film hits all the right marks and I'd go even further by saying it's one of the greatest animated movies I've ever seen.  This movie not only has a great love story but it's also an excellent adventure film and buddy film.  Not to mention all the great laughs and the masterpiece animation.  The Carl character is without question one of the most memorable, lovable and just downright entertaining in the history of animation and I can't help but think that this character will go down in movie history like so many of the early Disney characters.  The love story told early on between he and his wife was incredibly touching and more human than many of the live action love stories we get today.  His then father-son relationship with the young boy is also incredibly touching as is his connections to that silly bird and talking dog.  I really loved the look of the film and those balloons flying are certainly a beautiful site.  I'm not a major fan of CG animation but the work being done by Pixar is something truly remarkable and that brilliant work continues here.  This is certainly a movie that has a little bit of everything but what's so special is its heart and how it can communicate human emotions through animation.

Boundin' (2003)
 

Bud Luckey, Roger Gould
 

Pixar short about a happy-go-lucky sheep who dances his way across his Southern farm until one day his owners show up and shave his wool off.  Being naked and embarrassed, he tries to avoid everyone until a jackalope shows up to teach him it doesn't matter what he looks like.  I was really shocked at how entertaining this five-minute short was and how beautiful of a message it got across without being overly preachy.  The message is hidden in a great musical number that has some very nice lyrics that come across very entertaining and one that you'll be tapping your foot to.  The vocal works on all the little creatures is very good and mixes in quite well with the animation.  The animation itself is very well done with some extremely nice images including the wonderful sequence where our sheep starts bouncing across various landscapes as his wool eventually grows back.  Another nice spot was the actual look of the sheep naked.  Very cute all around.
 

One Man Band (2005)
 

Mark Andrews, Andrew Jimenez
 

Mildly entertaining short from Pixar has a little girl showing up at a fountain wanting to throw her gold coin in but two rival musicians start playing hoping to earn her coin.  This isn't the greatest short in the world but there's enough going on here to make it worth watching if you're a fan of the studio.  I think the best thing about the movie is the animation, which is very good from start to finish.  We get some very good looking items including the actual look of the two musicians and all of their instruments.  Also worthy are some of the smaller shots like the one where something happens to the coin.  What I didn't think worked as well as some of the other shorts was the actual story.  It was good enough for five-minutes but there really weren't enough laughs to push this film over the edge into something I could watch over and over again. 
 

Mike's New Car (2002)
 

Pete Docter, Roger Gould
 

Fun Pixar short has Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sulley (John Goodman) from MONSTER, INC. doing more damage.  Mike gets a new car and decides to take Sulley for a drive but he doesn't know how all the controls work yet, which leads to a lot of trouble for the duo.  I actually haven't seen the full length film that the characters are from but after seeing this I'm certainly going to try and make a stronger effort in getting it on.  I thought the film showed a lot of imagination considering how little time they had to tell the story.  The idea of various instruments going wrong could have made for a simple film but the nice imagination takes the idea and really runs with it.  I loved the sequence where Mike gets sucked up in the engine and his only way out is by making a phone call to Sulley who's still sitting in the car.  I was a little surprised to see that this was nominated for an Oscar but either way it's an enjoyable little film.
 

Knick Knack (1989)
 

John Lasseter
 

Cute Pixar short has a snow globe snowman looking out and seeing some other people in the hot sun and on the beach.  The snowman must then find a way to bust free from his globe and make it over to where all the fun is.  This six-minute short has a pretty good little twist half way through and that alone makes this thing worth watching.  While the animation isn't as clean or smooth as later Pixar movies, it's still quite refreshing on the eyes.  I really loved all the scenery inside the globe and I thought the mermaid stuff was well drawn as well.  What's really amazing about the computer animation is that it was done twenty-years ago when the entire format hadn't really been reached it's high points.  The screenplay, again, doesn't contain a lot because of how short the film is but what's here is a real joy with plenty of nice laughs. 
 

Geri's Game (1997)
 

Jan Pinkava
 

Oscar-winning Pixar short has an elderly man showing up at the park to play a game a chest against his rival, which just happens to be himself.  I was a little surprised to see that this one won an Oscar because it wasn't the strongest film I've seen from the studio but then again, I'm not sure how strong the other films were that year.  I thought the film just repeated the same gag one time too many and it never really made me laugh outside the first time.  The slow, old man slowly going from one chair to the other was got me to laugh the first time but not after that.  The scene of them getting mad with himself were funny the first time but not after that.  The animation was quite nice and I really liked the look of the old man but it just didn't work as well as many other Pixar shorts. 
 

Lifted (2006)
 

Gary Rydstrom
 

Extremely entertaining and rather intelligent short from Pixar has a couple aliens landing their aircraft above a house where they try to beam up the man sleeping inside.  The only problem is that the smallest alien is having trouble with all the controls and can't get him up to the ship.  This short is certainly very high on the cute level as the two aliens look the part just right and the overall comedy never gets too high but instead just delivers a fun time.  I thought the alien was the amazing looking shots of the UFO outside the out.  I loved the way it looked with that incredibly bright light and I really loved the ending and what the ship looked like when it took off.  I thought the two aliens looked very good and their comic timing together got plenty of nice, if small laughs.  On the visual level this here is certainly one of the best looking shorts I've seen from the studio.
 

Your Friend the Rat (2007)
 

Jim Capobianco
 

Very funny and highly entertaining "learning" films has the rats from Pixar's RATATOUILLE telling us the history of rats and explaining why humans should make peace with them.  We get to learn various things like how they help us in science experiments, how they are worshiped in India and we get to learn about their earliest days on Earth.  I was really shocked to see how funny this short was and it really wanted to make me watch the feature, which I'm sure is a good thing.  There were several jokes that had me laughing out loud including the wonderful one where the rats were hit with an atomic bomb and we're told they suffered no side effects but then we see them walk out with three heads on the one body.  The black plague sequence was also extremely funny as well as the scenes where we learn that rats can get into your home by the toilet.  I enjoyed that they also mixed up the animation a little here as it wasn't all CG.  The final joke with the rats trying to keep the disclaimer off the screen also worked very well. 
 

Jack-Jack Attack (2005)
 

Brad Bird
 

A somewhat snotty teen blows off the mother of the baby she's watching because she thinks she knows what she's doing but soon the baby is doing special tricks of his own and soon after wards the babysitter is in over her head.  This was a pleasant short from Pixar that has plenty of nice laughs but the real reason to watch this is for the extremely imaginative animation.  I really loved all the scenes with the baby floating from room to room and the scene where he turns into fire was especially funny.  I loved the overall look of the animation because it was a tad bit darker than some of their other shorts because this here, at times, could pass off as a little horror film.  The braces-wearing teen was very annoying but in a charming kind of way. 
 

Red's Dream (1987)
 

John Lasseter
 

This early Pixar short works best when you really think at how remarkable the animation was considering the entire CG thing was rather new so in many ways this short is very fresh and original.  It tells the story of a red unicycle who is sitting alone in a store on a dark and stormy night.  The unicycle then begins to dream what it would be like if someone would actually buy it and let it impress them.  Once again, I was really impressed with the visual style of the film as the animation is quite good even though it's still rather young in its making.  I thought the entire look of the film was wonderful especially the early shots of the rain, the look of the store and the very final shot.  There really aren't any laughs but I guess that's not a bad thing as this movie was clearly meant to tell a brief story that's charming. 
 

Tin Toy (1988)
 

John Lasseter
 

Oscar-winning short from Pixar has an extremely ugly, destructive and drooling baby breaking many of his toys.  One particular toy decides he doesn't want drool on him and he doesn't want to be destroyed so he tries to make a getaway.  This is a pretty nice little short that does a lot of very good things.  What I liked most was the actual story, which is pretty reasonable as I'm sure kids would look scary to a small toy.  That's the entire gimmick here and it works for many good laughs.  The over sized baby comes off as a Godzilla like monster and this was a nice touch.  I'm not sure if they meant to make the baby so ugly but it does work well with the story.  I loved the entire sequence under the furniture where other toys have also found a hiding space.  The early animation is certainly enjoyable if very simple.
 

Reply
post #1499 of 1550
12/7/09 at 11:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott View Post

Mario, I'd go a step further and call Ulmer overrated.  I'm really not sure where his great rep came from, how it came to be or anything else but I've spent a good number of days going through some of his films and I've found many to be rather dull.  From your own list, I'd say Lew Landers is a lot more entertaining in the "B" genre.  Of course, I'd also say Landers THE RAVEN is a lot better than Ulmer's Universal from the same period in THE BLACK CAT.  I've seen a lot of their "other" films and try to catch each one that gets shown and so far my money is on Landers.

 



I’m not sure I agree with you about Landers being better than Ulmer but I must say I enjoyed what little I have watched from his modest output which, apart from THE MAGIC CARPET (1951), includes THE RAVEN (1935), THE BOOGIE MAN WILL GET YOU (1942), THE RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE (1944), INNER SANCTUM (1948) and LAST OF THE BUCCANEERS (1950). For the record, I own but have yet to watch THE POWER OF THE WHISTLER (1945), as well as MAN IN THE DARK (1953), and would especially be interested in catching THE ENCHANTED FOREST (1945) and THE MASK OF DIJON (1946).
With respect to Ulmer, besides ISLE OF FORGOTTEN SINS (1943), I have watched THE BLACK CAT (1934; which, in my opinion, is superior to THE RAVEN), BLUEBEARD (1944), STRANGE ILLUSION (1945), DETOUR (1945), THE STRANGE WOMAN (1946; the only one I do not own!), PIRATES OF CAPRI (1949), THE MAN FROM PLANET X (1951), THE NAKED DAWN (1955), DAUGHTER OF DR. JEKYLL (1957), HANNIBAL (1959) and THE AMAZING TRANSPARENT MAN (1960). Out of these, THE BLACK CAT, BLUEBEARD, DETOUR and THE NAKED DAWN are easily the best and deservedly worthy of critical attention...but I also have high hopes for PEOPLE ON SUNDAY (1930), RUTHLESS (1948) and THE CAVERN (1964), which I own but have yet to check out – along with the lesser MURDER IS MY BEAT (1955) and BEYOND THE TIME BARRIER (1960).

Edited by Mario Gauci - 12/7/09 at 11:24pm
Reply
post #1500 of 1550
12/8/09 at 9:19pm
Pussy Soup - Not to be confused with Cat Soup, another insane Japanese movie based on a manga. This one isn't anime, it's live action with puppets. A down-on-his-luck cat idol opens a ramen restaurant, but gets competition from an unexpected rival. It's your standard underdog story, but it's goofy and entertaining. Always played with light-hearted touch, it moves quickly, with only a brief aside for a kawaii montage of the puppet interacting with real cats. Although the movie wasn't as strange as I'd hoped for, I had a pretty good time watching it. Rating: 7


Monterey Pop (Blu-Ray) - Even the best of concert films (*cough* Stop Making Sense *cough*) depend on how much you like the music involved. And with a festival/omnibus concert film, it's guaranteed you're not going to like all of it. This is pretty much evenly divided among stuff I love, stuff I like, stuff I hate and stuff I couldn't give a shit about. Jefferson Airplane, The Mamas and the Papas and Canned Heat can all go to hell. The Animals and Hugh Masekela and a couple of other ones were just boring. I love Simon & Garfunkel, but I hate "59th Street Bridge", so that was a wash. As for the highlights: Janis Joplin is someone I'm lukewarm on, but her performance was blistering. The Who's appearance was all too brief (and rather sloppy) but is well supplemented by the outtakes elsewhere on the disc. Hendrix of course was a terrific showman, and Otis Redding was phenomenal (and the most interestingly filmed sequence of the movie, shooting directly behind him with the spotlight sometimes blinding the viewer). Looking forward to the longer versions of their sets on the other disc. But the best is wisely saved for last: an astonishing, electrifying 17-minute raga by Ravi Shankar. I felt that some of Pennebaker's editing decisions were rather arbitrary and sometimes just wrong. Frankly I think the guy is a little overrated, but there's a few nice touches here. Rating: 7


The Room - I don't usually get into the ironic "so bad it's good" stance. I've gotten over bad = fun, now most of the time bad is either boring or irritating. But the buzz around this film is so loud, and when I finally saw a hilarious clip of it, I knew I had to see the rest. There's "so bad it's good"... and then there's "so bad it's amazing". I found my body producing entirely new kinds of laughter. Writer/director/star Tommy Wiseau is some kind of mad, narcissistic, vaguely European genius. I don't even know where to begin. The story is basically about what a great guy Tommy... er, "Johnny" is, and how he gets screwed over by his FUTURE WIFE and BEST FRIEND. There are rampant continuity errors (the needlessly complicated pizza that Lisa orders later appears to be simply pepperoni; the length of the relationship changes from 5 to 7 years; et cetera). Characters are mind-blowingly inconsistent. Voices are clearly overdubbed and the frequently-used rooftop location is clearly green-screened. Seemingly major plot threads are quickly abandoned, never to be heard from again. Bad music and terribly inept Skinemax-style love scenes (Johnny appears to enjoy humping Lisa's ribcage) on beds that aren't made properly. And oh god... oh god, the dialogue. Quotables abound, odd idiosyncracies in the writing, unbelievable transitions, awkward shoehorning of characters' names into every other line. But what really makes everything over-the-top is Wiseau's performance. The thick, indefinable accent and stilted delivery makes the whole thing a joy (frankly, the scenes without him tend to be kind of dull). He's clearly in love with himself, and the film's finale is the ultimate narcissist's fantasy, and yet I also felt a weird sense of pity for him. You wonder if there really was a villanious "Lisa" in his life. Probably not, but maybe there is a tragic story behind Tommy Wiseau. Oh, and I watched this at home, by myself (although I had to show parts of it to my wife later, who was also greatly tickled by it) and didn't miss the audience participation one bit. I hate that Rocky Horror, conformity-for-non-conformists crap. And I got to see the amusing behind-the-scenes and "interview", featuring yet more bad editing and obvious overdubs. Giving this a rating seems meaningless in this case... it's a blatantly awful movie, but I did enjoy it (albeit ironically). Still, I want to be consistent, so.... Rating: 2
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Track the Films You Watch (2009)